TT 990 






'^^^''^ 





^^v.-^-^' 






'J>^.r 








°o 







s.^ -\ - , 



..• A 






POUND LAUNDRY 5LRVICL 



Pound Laundry Service 



By 
5. BACHARACH 



IN COLLABORATION WITH 

LAUNDRY LXPLRT5 AND 

INCLUDING CONTRIBUTIONS 

TO THE 5TARCHROOM 

LAUNDRY JOURNAL 



The 5tarchroom Publishing Company 

Cincinnati, Ohio, U. 5. A. 






COPYRIGHT 1919 
THE STARCHROOM PUBLISHING CO, 






THE BACHARACH PRESS 

Cincinnati, Ohio, U. S. A. 

©CI.A515098 



Contents 



Page 

Preface 9 

Laundry Conditions 11 

Starchroom Editorials 15 

Flat Work Selling Prices 23 

Some Flat Work Figures 29 

Pound Laundry Service 33 

Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 49 

Thoughts on Finished Family Work 79 

Pound Laundry Service 91 

Comments on Pound Laundry Service 97 

A Reply to Mr, Downer's Criticism 99 

The Family Wash 104 

Laundry Service Prices 110 

Semi and Finished Work 1 13 

Rough Drying Handkerchiefs 119 



Pref 



rerace 



IN the early days of 1914 the laundry trade viewed with 
alarm the rapid growth of popularity for soft shirts and collars. 
A steadily diminishing volume of men's starched work made 
serious inroads on profits and a lucrative phase of laundry 
service threatened to disappear. The war followed with an 
attendant dislocation of business; the influenza and labor un- 
rest added to the difificulties and problems and the crisis con- 
fronting the laundry trade was so acute that industrial success 
was well nigh impossible. The Starchroom Laundry Journal 
forcefully directed consideration of the causes and effects and 
editorially counselled the creation of new sources of business. 
In the search for bigger volume the most attractive field and 
which gave most promise for immediate aid was Pound Laundry 
Service or finished family work. In the series of articles on 
this subject an effort has been made to demonstrate the profit 
character of this proposed new department and to prove that 
it would mean the creation of a popular laundry service. A 
study of the tables or exhibits will convince the reader of the 
feasibility of the plan and that it is adaptable to every efficient 
power laundry. 

A conflict of judgment is revealed by the advocacy in the 
initial article of 13 cents per pound for finishing and the subse- 
quent advocacy of a level price of 15 cents the pound for a 
minimum bundle of 20 pounds. This latter judgment is now 
claimed as an adequate selling price. Operators in cities of 
population of 25,000 will experience no loss with the minimum 
lowered to 15 pounds. 

Acknowledgement of courtesies extended are gratefully 
made to The Model Laundry Co., of Cincinnati, to Messrs. 
H. H. Gilpatrick, A. T. Downer, and the many other experts 
whose contributions on the subject in this book have been a 
real help. 

Cincinnati, April, 1919. 



Laundry Conditions 



A LEADING question with a great many operators in the 
power laundry field has centered on the stability of the 
business in the future. Granted that the period of re- 
construction, bringing with it many readjustments, will change 
the character of laundry patronage, what measures are possible 
to adapt the business to these changes and still assure stability. 
While many observers believe that there will be a return of. 
shirts and collars and that the recession in this volume is only 
temporary yet the gain in volume will be slow and the deficit 
in profits as compared with previous days will be a serious 
proposition. With the diminished income resulting from the 
sale of service for shirts and collars there is an apparent necessity 
for filling the gap and bringing in a volume that will earn or 
produce the same profits. It is generally conceded that threre 
are but two probable chances for increased business. One is 
the semi-finished work and the other is finished family work or, as 
The Starchroom prefers to name both of these "Pound Laundry 
Service." This term, it is believed, is a fitting substitute to cover 
both classes of work. It is a more attractive marketing title, 
it more definitely discloses the character of the service and is 
preferable to the old terms of flat work and rough dry and 
similar titles. In a large number of cities the semi-finished work 
has grown to large proportions and it is apprehended that the 
growth will be slow under the existing prices and which have been 
based on wartime conditions. These prices for semi-finished 
work range from 6 cents to 12 cents the pound. The average 
would probably be around 8 cents and which, it is judged, will 
mean a weekly expenditure within the limit of the housewife's 
budget for home expense. Obviously, the 12 cent price, bring- 
ing the service price of the sheet to 16^ cents is prohibitive 
and even with the best quality and most punctual service 
few housewives will pay the price. At the 8 cent price for 
semi-finished work, making the sheet 11 cents there is still 
an inclination to regard it as prohibitive but it is probably a 
price that is necessary because of the present high cost of laun- 
dering and which high cost will probably be a burden for at 
least a year. Whether or not this class of service can be made 
to grow, is to some extent, a question of locality and whether 
or not the prospective patrons can pay the price. The service 
is unquestionably a necessity and its popularity in a number 
of cities proves beyond a doubt that it can be established in 
every city of 10,000 or more inhabitants. The failure in a 



12 Pound Laundry Service 

number of large cities to increase this business is due rather 
to an apathy or prejudice of the laundryowners rather than to 
any lack of commercial advantage in establishing this class 
of service. Some laundryowners have deferred establishing 
this service upon the theory of building up a bigger trade in 
bundle work and thereby escaping the managerial burden 
that is imposed in the laundering of the semi-finished. While 
it is claimed that these laundryowners are short sighted there 
is a great deal to say on the other side but it is felt that the 
controversy would neither prove anything nor add a chance 
to convince those who have rejected this channel of increased 
volume. Assuming that the semi-finished service is a factor 
in a city the query arises why not try to turn this volume into 
a larger income by adding a cost for ironing or finishing. No 
extra expense, as is pointed out in the several succeeding pages 
will be incurred in the collection and delivery, in the marking or 
in the washing, starching and drying. 

The creation of new laundry business, that is to say from 
patrons not now buying the service, is a matter of education, 
and salesmanship. It is also largely a matter of purchasing 
power and it is fair assumption that 90 per cent of the people 
now able to buy laundry service are already patrons. If this 
is conceded then an increase must come from the present patrons 
and nothing seems more feasible than to attempt to get this 
increase by making a speciality of finishing the work. Most of 
the experts that have voiced objections to the plan have concen- 
trated their opposition on the basis of the fluctuating cost 
that is bound to occur in the handling of the starched garments. 
The especial uncertainty seems to be focused on shirtwaists. 
While the present style and fashion seems to prefer the plain 
and less fancy waist there, is, of course, the ever present prob- 
ability that styles will change and the laundryowner who makes 
a price on ladies clothes may be confronted with fancy articles, 
the ironing of which will cost considerably more than the income. 
Every service proposition, whether it be telephone, telegraph, 
express company or others make restrictions and the contract 
with the patron extends along a certain line of enforced regula- 
tion. There is no reason in the world why laundry service should 
not have these same restrictions and it is therefore quite fair 
to say that the pound price includes everything that the house- 
wife chooses to send but that an extra charge will have to be 
made for finery or delicate textiles needing especial care and 
attention. It is quite improbable that there can ever be fash- 
ioned an exact or perfectly adjusted regulation and control of 
systems that govern the operations of utility concerns. There 
is, of course, a necessity that laundries operating in the same 
locality should conform to a certain uniformity in practice or in 



Laundry Conditions 13 

business methods insofar as the public is concerned. Methods 
may differ in producing the work, a differential in price because 
of quality may be consistent but there should be regulations 
concerning the service and which should be recognized by every 
operating plant. 

The recent introduction of a five-day collection and de- 
livery system opens a channel in which there is promise of 
considerable reformation and a sweeping away of many abuses. 
This system, permitting three days on the work will be of especial 
value if the laundry is to do all of the family work and it makes 
possible the adequate time for giving quality work on the 
finished family system. 

If this system should become universal and the oldtime 
abuse of peak loads on Monday and Tuesday is removed there 
is no reason why every well-equipped laundry should not handle 
at least 100 Pound Laundry Service customers per day. 
If the minimum of $3 per bundle is established this would mean 
a very considerably increased income and, by reason of the extra 
production, a very satisfactory lowering of overhead charges. 
A careful study of requirements of patrons and a thorough 
knowledge of the correct business principles of laundry service 
should compel the adaptation of the operating organization to 
these needs and with the experience that has already been gained 
in the laundry world there is no reason why systems should not 
be combined to give perfect satisfaction to the patron. 

The one department in laundry practice which has suffered 
the most neglect and which is the most vitally important is the 
dual system of marking and assorting. Inefficient methods in 
the marking room are the foundation of claims and complaints 
and loss of patronage. At the very beginning of laundry process 
there has been an indifference to requirements and the average 
expense or the cost for this inexcusable lack of managerial 
efficiency has made a burden of cost of from 1 per cent to \}4 
per cent on the volume of business. One-half of this expenditure 
devoted to inspection and to accurate marking would mean a 
gain in many plants of at least 5 per cent in volume. It is not 
alone this gain that is desirable but it would instill in the mind 
of the patron a better feeling of confidence and a willingness to 
place more trust in laundry management. The purpose of the 
succeeding pages is to convince the reader of the feasibility of 
"Pound Laundry Service" and especially that branch of pound 
laundry service which will offer to do all of the household work 
at an agreed price per pound. Economic conditions differ 
radically in different localities and it would be unwise to make 
a mandatory price of 15c per pound and which was to apply to 
all sections of this country. This price is within the calculation 
of every laundryowner and a price should be made which will 
adequately cover every factor of cost in production. The 



14 Pound Laundry Service 

several exhibits are made from actual sources and the arith- 
metical totals are accurate. As stated in the article concerning 
the "summer exhibit" there is, of course, a question of cost in 
the handling of ladies' fancy wear which makes for a problem. 
There is, however, a percentage of profit in the other branches 
of the work which is assumed to be adequate to meet the largest 
amount of extra cost in this ironing department. No single 
difificulty seems to present itself in blocking an attempt or a 
trial of this department. Every laundryowner should at once 
establish a trade of 100 patrons and by keeping an accurate 
account of the costs readily determine on the feasibility of in- 
creasing this trade. All laundryowners are agreed that if the 
business is to survive and be profitable there must be greater 
volume. If this view is accepted then the sooner an attempt is 
made to increase volume the sooner will the business have the 
stability that the effort deserves. 



Starchroom Editorials 



Pound Laundry Service 
December, 1917 . 

THE article under this caption, and which appears elsewhere 
in this number, is an attempt, in a tentative way, to direct 
attention to a new channel for increased laundry volume. 
The disturbed commercial conditions, the uncertainties of a war 
period and the fixed resolution of the Government to go to the 
extreme in accomplishing its purpose, have placed the laundry 
business in an entirely new situation. Reports from different 
sections of this country indicate that the volume has diminished 
at least 25 per cent and, while service charges have been advanced, 
the laundry income is still at least 10 per cent below that of 
1914 and 1915. In a business that is already handicapped by a 
narrow margin of profit, this is a most serious situation and there 
should be vigorous efforts made to establish new business 
and which, in our judgment, will most logically be found in a 
department of Finished Family Work. The proposed rate ad- 
vocated in the article in question, is of course, a theory. It 
would be absurd to expect infallibility in a calculation of this 
kind but it is hoped that enough argument is presented to bring 
out a full discussion so that the weakness or strength of such 
a proposition can be determined. It is quite evident that no 
increased volume may be expected along the regular lines and 
there must be some new development if more business is-to be 
brought into the plant. The present adjustment of list prices 
has not been found satisfactory and in many cities an adjustment 
is deemed necessary. All adjustments of whatever nature should 
be based on a complete knowledge of the new situation, and the 
new costs with probable further advancement along certain lines 
should be reckoned with. Readers of this periodical are invited 
to express an opinion concerning the Finished Family Depart- 
ment. Is it feasible? Can it be made profitable? If the 20 
cent pound rate is not advantageous, what method of charging 
for the service would you suggest? Is the plant equipped to 
handle this extra work or would a new and special department 
be necessary? What is a reasonable charge to the patron and 
what strength can be added to the selling campaign? If the 
difference between Summer and Winter wear is a barrier, what 
adjustment in prices is possible to reconcile the difTerences of 
the two seasons? The exhibit of actual averages from one hun- 
dred pound bundles should prove a valuable basis for comparison 
and every laundryowner should test the proposition and deter- 



16 Pound Laundry Service 

mine the character of the work he is receiving. Pound Laundry 
Service can be made very attractive and we urge the assistance 
of all for the proper solution of this momentous problem. 

January, 191S, 

The analysis of the list price in Mr. Gilpatrick's article, the 
statement in the presentation by the Carolyn Laundry, and the 
selling price as described by Mr. Caudle all seem to tend to 
verify the calculation that the 13 cent price the pound for finish- 
ing rough dry is based on a sound analysis. The consideration 
of the proposed new department should not, however, hinge 
solely on a pre-determined basis of selling price, but rather on the 
fundamental requirement of the offer of a laundry service that 
shall meet the needs and wishes of the public. The questions of 
a separate department, of marking and sorting, bundling and 
delivery are purely problems of method and as our laundryowners 
have always solved these problems our chief concern for the 
present is to prove that the creation of this new service is feasible, 
advantageous and desirable from the viewpoint of the present 
rough dry patrons. If it so proves there is a decided prospect 
that this branch of laundry service can be very considerably 
extended. But suppose we consider only our present rough dry 
patronage. Let us cite, Cincinnati for instance, with approxi- 
mately 60 tons the week. Let us assume that only one-half 
of this tonnage is converted to finished family work. Upon 
the calculations in the November exhibit of the Model Laundry 
Co. this would mean an increased annual sales income of ap- 
proximately $200,000. For the benefit of the skeptically in- 
clined, cut this in half and concede $100,000. Apply this 
estimate to the urban population of the United States which 
is the laundry patron, and it means probably $15,000,000 more 
income and which will materially assist in reducing the ratios 
of the costs of production. Our proposed plan of pound laundry 
service certainly means a very materially enlarged field for the 
business coupled with the prospect of a substantial profit. We 
realize the magnitude of the undertaking and the intricacy of the 
problems that surround its proper introduction. We believe 
however, it is not only feasible but imperatively opportune and 
that the exigencies of the present laundry situation and the 
necessity of securing for the business a rock-bed foundation 
demand immediate consideration and rapid action. Let us 
counsel together. Voice your thoughts, analyze your own con- 
ditions and give us the benefit of your experience and judgment. 
Millions of dollars can be added to volume when the laundry 
trade puts into actual practice a pound laundry service at a 
selling price fair to the patron and properly remunerative to the 
laundryowner. 



Starchroom Editorials 17 

February, 1918. 

The creation of a new department of laundry service is a 
momentous proposition and every single factor tending to 
such a development must recieve scrutinizing analysis. In our 
initial article and exhibits the tentative character of the new 
theory was pointed out and a plea was made for the trade to 
study every aspect of such a new service and particularly to 
view it from its adaptability to their own plant and their own 
environment. What is desirable in Cincinnati or Cleveland 
will not always meet the same conditions in New York or Boston, 
and laundry service, since it is concededly a neighborhood busi- 
ness, must be offered to meet the want of the public from which 
patronage is expected. The several comments in the January 
number and the exhibits are illuminating and may be convincing 
according to the efficiency or capacity of the interested laundry- 
owner. The necessity of a separate department is forcefully 
denied by Mr. McCullough, of Spokane, and his exhibits in this 
number is strong evidence of the feasibility and profit of finished 
family wash to be handled by the existing arrangements. Mr. 
Hart, of New Jersey, raises a new point when he inquires if the 
field for rough dry is exhausted. We contend that the introduc- 
tion of finished family work will increase rough dry, as it will in- 
evitably educate the housewife to the domestic economy that is 
possible from sending all the linen to the power laundry. The 
fear of extra large ironing room costs in the Summer months 
is in our judgment the only objection that will require further 
proof to demonstrate that it will not consume all the profits. 
The comparisons thus far adduced are cumulative evidence of 
low selling prices that have heretofore eaten away profits from 
the other departments. Other testimony that is presented 
strongly points to the necessity of expanding the field of laundry 
service and the February exhibits blaze the way for a definite 
and exhaustive study of the project. 

August, 1919. 

A new method of selling price has found a number of advo- 
cates in the East. The proposition embraces a fixed price per 
pound plus one cent per piece for the contents of the bundle. 
It has been partly adopted in Philadelphia, where it originated, 
and the plan received much consideration in Boston, and was 
finally put into practice upon a basis of 5 cents per pound plus 
the additional charge of one cent per piece. We believe that an 
analysis of pound work bundles will bring the Boston price to 
between 6 and 7 cents per pound if the pound and piece price 
are combined. It is claimed that the method is better for the 
laundry, that it is more attractive for marketing and precludes 



18 Pound Laundry Service 

the extra handkerchief burden. Mr. Chas. L. Miller, of Phila- 
delphia, has given the plan exhaustive consideration and has 
had it in eiTect for several months. The Boston group advised 
patrons of the proposed change by a series of publicity inserts 
and which are presented to our readers for consideration. The 
plan is offered and the reader must consider his own neighbor- 
hood conditions to solve the question of its advisability. 

August, 1918. 

The rapidly shifting commercial conditions have made 
new problems for the laundry trade. Coupled with these dis- 
locating influences was the soft shirt and collar, and the de- 
creasing volume because of the young men being called to the 
colors. Then followed changes in price schedules and in the 
necessarily hurried movement it was impossible to avoid price 
inequality. Quite recently we were shown a number of protests 
from patrons who demanded a lower rate for underwear. One 
letter in particular compared the 12 cent price on a 4-ounce ath- 
letic suit with the price on a shirt, the latter evidencing at least 
twice as much work. While the objection is sound, the average 
increase must be taken into "account and when costs reach a fixed 
level an equalization will ensue. Present prices in some items 
are regarded by many far-seeing experts as too high. Whether 
or not these are excessive and have acted as prohibitive has not 
been determined. It is safe to assume that prudent laundry 
management will seek to serve the many in preference to almost 
equal income from the few. A lessened number of patrons pre- 
cludes volume growth and as volume is seasonal the larger the 
number of patrons the more chance for the bigger business that 
follows a few hot days or holidays or other influencing conditions. 
There is, of course, nothing new in the presentation of an un- 
balanced laundry price schedule. From the early days of 1865 
down to these troublous days of 1918, inadequate prices have 
rubbed shoulders with remunerative rates, and until cost systems 
cast a suspicion on reckless selling management the fallacy 
persisted. There is, therefore, no compelling reason for finding 
fault with war price schedules only so far as they tend to make a 
diminished number of patrons a menace to laundry growth and 
stability. A recent expression from a laundryowner, who is an 
acknowledged expert, recognizes the problem in this analysis of 
the probable danger: 

"Volume must be had from other sources perhaps 
by influencing more of the household linens into our 
plants. This is rather hard to do under present methods 
and high prices of necessity charged. To my mind, in 
these times, it is not so much a question of volume of 
pieces as it is a sufficient volume of dollars to pay all 
production costs and leave a margin of profit, therefore 



Starchroom Editorials 19 

the enclosed higher list prices. This list is the will of the 
majority of laundryowners here and it remains to be 
seen whether piece volume decrease will overcome dollar 
volume increase. Other lines of industry have found it 
necessary to charge a price their product was worth and it 
looks as though it is up to us to do the same thing. It 
is a problem for every community and no doubt each one 
will work it out their way, but whatever we do we should 
do in a spirit of helpfulness toward each other and abide 
by the judgment of the thinking majority." 

While we respect the judgment of the "thinking majority," 
and while we do not claim irresistible logic in denial of their atti- 
tude, yet we believe that the theory is a menace and experience 
will demonstrate that it is unwise to adopt measures in the 
expectation that "dollar volume increase" will justify "the 
piece volume decrease." The increased volume will come from 
a decreased patronage and, as we pointed out in the preceding 
paragraphs, a stabilization of the business is dependent on re- 
taining the greater number of patrons. 

November, 1918, 

Despite the dislocation by war conditions the search for a 
substitute service which shall bring increased volume is still a 
burning question and the exhaustive exhibit at the Missouri 
convention by Mr. H. H. Gillpatrick and the splendid analysis 
at Chicago by Mr. A. T. Downer have greatly enriched the 
fund of information and the conclusions of these two experts 
bring us a step nearer to the introduction of the service. The 
feasibility of such an offering of this service is not in question 
and it is generally conceded that it can safely be done. The 
barrier, and to us it seems a shallow objection, lies in the question 
of production and the widespread fear that ironing the starched 
pieces is sure to demolish and extinguish all possible profit. 
Our readers will recall that in December, 1917, and January, 
1918, a series of exhibits by Mr. S. Bacharach attempted to 
establish the accuracy of a price of seven cents per pound and 
thirteen cents additional per pound for ironing of the rough dry 
as an acceptable price for finished family washing. Both 
Messrs. Gillpatrick and Downer incline to the pound plus piece 
price, but it will be noted that in the exhibit by Mr. Gillpatrick 
the proportion of starched ladies' wear is not alarming, w^hile 
Mr. Downer echoes our statement that the initial pound price 
is established, but the matter of total pricing is questionable as no 
particular study has demonstrated the really accurate selling 
prices. Unfortunately, the business has not been standardized 
and there are material differences in management and which 
reflect considerable diversity in costs of production. Heretofore 



20 Pound Laundry Service 

the trade has adopted the traditional usage of a selling service 
price regardless of its origin or its adaptability to their own 
conditions and this has made for unaccountable differences in 
comparative statements or cost exhibits. We have attacked the 
proposition of finished family work from the viewpoint or angle 
of an acknowledged efihcient plant. Our conclusions are based 
on the requirement of an ample profit and which should have 
such a margin of safety as to assure a substantially correct de- 
preciation, a normal interest charge on capital and a fair profit for 
the business hazard. We realize that neither the price we advo- 
cate nor, in fact, any fixed price by a conference, is universally 
adaptable. There is, however, a possible basic price from which 
the manager may build his selling price and fix it according to 
his own profit requirements. In the former effort in the direction 
of ascertaining a selling price for finished family work we sought 
to demonstrate that seven cents for flat work and rough dry and 
thirteen cents additional per pound for ironing the rough dry was 
a satisfactory price. From a marketing viewpoint, this plan pre- 
sented objectionable features. It was difficult to explain; 
apparently it was involved and it was not practical. A simple 
definite proposal, a more attractive offering, and one not neces- 
sitating calculation, was necessary to enlist the approval of the 
housewife. In this number, an exhibit by Mr. Bacharach seeks 
to establish a new selling service by the pound and which, in our 
judgment, is on a safe and logical basis. The prime necessity is 
more laundry volume. There is no question of the patent 
probability that some day in the near future the laundry will 
get all the household work. The sooner the right price is offered 
the sooner will be the arrival of that day. Moreover, we are 
convinced that the establishing of such a service will, beyond 
the shadow of a doubt, solve to a very great extent, the laundry 
volume problem and, more important than all else, will produce 
the income to maintain a better service in all departments. 

December, 1918. 

The article by Mr. Bacharach in this number, with charts 
showing sizes, weights and prices of different items of flat work, 
should merit study and should compel calculation by the laundry 
manager with a volume of flat work or linen supply. The figures 
on weights and sizes are furnished through the courtesy of the 
H. W. Baker Linen Co., of New York, and may be considered 
accurate, as the concern has for many years done a very large 
business in linen supplies. In connection with the information 
supplied by the charts. The Starchroom table of weights is again 
presented, and the combination furnishes a complete basis for 
predicating selling prices for linen supply or private trade. All 
of the cost exhibits thus far offered by the accounting experts 
show a production expense of from 4 to 6 cents a pound for 



Starchroom Editorials 21 

flat work. An average price of 5 cents a pound would, in our 
judgment, be an indication of efficient management, and it is 
therefore apparent that a list price of less than the pound cost 
is an absurd economic blunder. Sheets at 6 or 7 cents, and 
slips at 3 cents are put out at a loss. Linen supply concerns 
furnishing their own towels at a selling price of 65 cents per 
hundred and napkins at 50 or 60 cents per hundred are treading 
on dangerous ground. The charts demonstrate that a list price 
for flat work is a decided hazard for laundry management, and 
the varying sizes and weights should prove that only in a pound 
price is there absolute safety. We have repeatedly pointed out 
the illogical practice of dual prices with the blunder in pricing 
flat work on the list at a lesser price than by the pound. If 
the laundry manager accepts our table of weights, the individual 
items of flat work on the list should be equivalent in selling 
price to the pound price of either 7 or 8 cents, or whichever price 
is the basis. There is no business reason which may be urged to 
justify placing the big burden of price on shirts and collars. It 
has long been contended and the position is correct that the 
profit expectation should be equalized and it is high time that 
flat work prices are made to stand their share of the cost burden. 
Leaders or attractive bargains have no place in selling laundry 
service, and a continuance of this unbusinesslike practice should 
no longer be tolerated. 

January, 1919. 

Mr. G. W. Williams at the Connecticut meeting, reported in 
this number, gave a tabulation of selling prices for Pound Laun- 
dry Service which in a measure confirms the conclusions of The 
Starchroom articles as to an adequate price. A total of 96 
bundles brought an income of $292.33. The weight was 1658 
pounds which if priced at 15 cents the pound would mean an 
income of $248.70. If the minimum of 20 lbs. was employed 
the 96 bundles would weigh 1920 pounds with an income of 
$288. It is interesting to note that Mr. Williams received an 
average of $3.04 per bundle with a weight of 1658 pounds while the 
Model exhibit in November Starchroom shows on a parallel 
basis of 96 bundles a weight of 2594 pounds which at 15 cents 
means an income of $389.10, or an average of $4.05 per bundle. 
The comparison, however, is misleading as all of the 40 bundles 
in the Model exhibit did not equal the minimum of 20 pounds. 
The exhibit shows that a pound rate of 17 cents would have 
equalled Mr. Williams' method of 9 cents the pound for flat 
and list price for soft and ladies' wear pieces. The compelling 
thought is the really small difference in the calculation as between 
a city in Connecticut and one in Ohio. Moreover, there 
is abundant inspiration in the exhibit from Connecticut to 



22 Pound Laundry Service 

give the plan a tryout and whether the service is sold by a 
straight pound price or a combination pound and list price the 
laundry manager cannot lose. If there should be a small loss 
in either method the value of a foundation for greater volume is 
a very promising offset. The single tabulation of "body clothes" 
also shows items that are profitable on the price quoted even 
after the allowance of one-third. The Connecticut, the Kansas 
City and the Cincinnati exhibits and tabulation afiford laundry 
managers a definite basis for comparisons in their own plants. 
The very best method, however, is the tryout and it will be money 
in the owner's pocket whichever plan is used in the experiment. 



Flat Work Selling Prices 

By S. Bacharach 



AN exhaustive survey of flat work laundry prices and an 
analysis of conflicting prices and conditions in different 
localities in the country very pointedly indicate that in 
this department there has been the greatest uncertainty con- 
cerning costs and the most widespread fluctuation in selling 
prices. For some unexplainable reason, the earlier practice in 
laundry service marketing seemed to be founded on the theory 
that the cost of producing flatwork was very low and probably 
basing this theory upon the labor costs, it seemed to be generally 
conceived that any old price would be adequate and that all one 
had to do was to get volume to make money. It never occurred 
to some of the handlers of this work that the price might be below 
the cost of production and, while, as some laundryowners explain, 
it was a leader for bringing in other volume, no really accurate 
conception was ever had of the real costs. While laundry 
methods and especially laundry management has not been 
standardized, yet there has been offered sufficient data upon 
which to predicate a fairly accurate idea of the real cost for 
handling flat work. Obviously, there will be some fluctuating 
factors in cost and, as the writer has repeatedly maintained, 
the average should be regarded as a fair basis and it should be 
generally understood that laundering is just what the United 
States Census Bureau originally stated, "a neighborhood busi- 
ness." Environment, the facility of help reaching the laundry, 
the cost of labor, the routeing and all the other factors show a 
fluctuation which arises from either one factor or the other and 
which, to a degree, influences costs. There is, however, a very 
fixed ascertainment of the average cost for coal, soap, water, 
alkalis and power. Whatever differences there may be, gener- 
ally arise from the differences in labor cost, rent and overhead. 
For the purpose of a comparison of cost of production, I believe 
that office overhead and selling expense should, for the sake of 
accuracy, be disregarded. Different men have different selling 
methods and especially have different ideas of management. 
Efficiency is often achieved by some one man whose methods are 
totally different from those of his competitor and yet the competi- 
tor with careless and rather inefficient management manages 
either to survive on a lower selling price or with inferior methods. 
It is a general experience that a great many inefficient laundry- 
owners seem to have the traditional nine lives that is credited 
to the cat. Very often laundries, with bankruptcy staring them 
in the face, with bills unpaid and the sheriff almost at their door, 



24 Pound Laundry Service 

have been known to live and live on for years to harass the trade 
and to depress and damage the selling market. Then, again, 
some plants have exceptionally favorable selling resources or 
have some one department that is an extra source of profit and 
are enabled thereby to sell flat work at a price which cannot 
be safely used by a competitor. 

The figures shown in the chart and representing the weight 
of the goods is the weight just as received from the mill. The 
amount of dressing in the goods is about equivalent to the 
foreign matter that would be absorbed by the goods by use and 
which they contain when offered for laundering. The sheets 
and pillow cases are standard qualities and represent such sizes 
as are extensively advertised for household use and are also in 
general use in hotel and hospital. There are cheaper qualities 
and inferior weaves which are considerably lighter in weight, 
but in preparing these tabulations and also in striking an average 
for our weight table the sizes have been taken that are more 
generally used and which represent at least 90 per cent of the 
volume offered to the laundry. Quoting again from the ex- 
perience of the H. W. Baker Linen Co., the bedspreads desig- 
nated as dimity are bedspreads used quite extensively in hos- 
pitals, although there are a great many sold for the household. 
The crochet spreads are more used in the home and in the less 
expensive grades of hotels and also in some hospitals. The 
towel situation just at the present time is in a chaotic condition 
and, under normal conditions, there are manufactured from 30 
to 40 different grades of cotton towels. The weights that are 
presented for towels may be considered as along the line of an 
average, representing general usage and also representing the 
output of the linen supply companies. The grommet towels 
and the smaller sized service towels would make a slight differ- 
ence in calculating the weight of towels by the hundred, but the 
linen supply manager desirous of making a calculation can readily 
establish this difference by weighing 500 or 1,000 of the towels 
whose weight is in question. In the matter of table linen the 
16/17 and the 18/18, 22/22 are probably the most popular 
cotton napkins that are used by cafeterias, lunch counters and 
reasonably priced restaurants. These sizes do not often come 
into the laundry from private trade, but are used by the linen 
supply concerns for the purpose indicated. I am informed that 
the quality is quite a good deal heavier than the average mercer- 
ized but it is a quality that is being used a great deal through- 
out the country and will be more commonly used in the future 
for all purposes owing to the scarcity and high price of linen. 

In the present condition of the business it is imperative that 
an absolutely accurate basis be used for the computation or the 
fixing of a selling price for flat work. There are, of course, two 
branches for the sales of flat work. The one is to the private 



Flat Work Selling Prices 25 

consumer or the housewife and the other to hotels, restaurants, 
railroads, etc. In between these two classes there is the boarding 
house, the small tourist hotel and other patrons whose weekly 
volume is supposed to entitle them to a little better price than 
the average housewife. These differences in the market have 
led to a number of methods of selling and in most of which the 
price was a fluctuating and illogical factor. A number of 
experts incline to the judgment that the selling price should be 
upon an absolute fixed basis and that concessions, if necessary, 
shall only be in the way of a discount for quantity. If the price 
is correct, the writer can see no objection to such a discount but, 
unless this discount is justifiably fixed at a correct percentage, 
the practice is apt to lead to underselling. One of the great 
abuses of the earlier practice was to regard flatwork by the piece 
and to totally disregard the really controlling element of weight. 
About eight years ago the attention of the laundry world was 
directed to the necessity of the consideration of flat work service 
only by weight and, in attempting to prove the proposition. 
The Starchroom published, through the courtesy of the Model 
Laundry Co., of Cincinnati, a table showing the items of^ flat 
work by weight and also tabulating the price that every item 
should sell for on a basis of either 5c or 6c or 7c per pound. The 
table received marked attention and very many laundryowners 
used the table as a gauge to fix prices for hotels and restaurants. 
All of these calculations and all of these efforts to better the 
practice were pre-war efforts and at that time there was neither 
expectation nor anticipation of the abnormal conditions that 
could be created by war. The experience of the London laun- 
dries in the early years of the war was not impressive to the 
American trade and the long distance influenced the delusion 
that such a crisis could never confront the American trade and 
the laundryowners were lulled into the primrose hallucination 
that the trouble would never reach our shore. In a concrete 
sense, the experience of the last eighteen months has impera- 
tively demonstrated that the laundry business is not a "hit or 
miss" or "catch as catch can" proposition but a real business 
proposition dependent upon really fixed and rigid rules of ob- 
servance as to costs. When the real trouble began and labor 
costs rose, a panic ensued and prices and additional percentages 
were hurriedly arranged and, of course, produced the expected 
rebellion from the patrons. There was a very good reason for 
objection by the patrons. They had been led to believe, by the 
unbusinesslike practice of the trade, that there was no bottom 
for laundry prices and that it was merely a question of cunning 
or cleverness to beat down the bids to almost unbelievable 
figures . Competitive tactics were really conducted by sharpened 
swords and no war, with reckless disregard of values, could 
parallel the cutting and slashing that this sort of competition 
produced. 



26 Pound Laundry Service 

In recent months the fallacy of such practices has been 
made more and more obvious and there has been more and more 
study, observation and research to discover a fixed basis upon 
which selling prices could be predicated. Through the courtesy 
of the H. W. Baker Linen Co., of New York City, I have secured 
a tabulation showing the weights of flat work most generally sold 
to the housewife and linen supply concerns. A diagram has been 
made of each unit, and appended to the number of square inches 
of the superficial area of such unit is the weight in ounces and the 
selling price, if 7c per pound is accepted as an adequate selling 
price. If the price is 8c or 9c, the reader can easily calculate the 
selling price by taking the 7c price as a basis and adapting 
the corresponding ratios. If these units are averaged and the 
larger sizes disregarded it will be found that the table presented 
in The Starchroom eight years ago is sufficiently accurate for 
all purposes. The new charts are offered so that managers 
bidding on the work of hotel or restaurants can be guided in their 
selling price by the weight of the prospective loads. There are, 
of course, other factors which should be taken into account in 
fixing a price and these more especially are the cost of delivery 
and the volume obtainable in regard to whether or not a full 
load for a washer is the result. Present conditions in the 
laundry business do not foreshadow any immediate prospect of 
the return of the shirt and collar work. Whether because the 
present high price for laundering has driven these from use or 
back to the home tub or whether it is the result of the decree of 
fashion, the stern necessity of the calculation must take into 
account the absolute absence of any considerable volume of 
shirts and collars and the corresponding reduction in profits. 
The trade will be driven, therefore, to get an adequate return 
for flat work and this adequate price must be based on real 
knowledge of costs and it must be reasonable to the extent of 
influencing the housewife to patronize the laundry. It is con- 
ceded that during the past months it was necessary and absolutely 
imperative for the laundryowner to secure more income. This 
condition will be with him for some months but, in the mean- 
time, an effort must be made to sell a service which will be at- 
tractive in price and which will induce patronage rather than 
compel the housewife to consider the home washing machine. 
Newspaper reports quite recently disclosed the meeting of an 
association of the manufacturers of home washing machines 
driven by power or by water motors. The writer is reliably 
informed that in the past few months this business has grown by 
leaps and bounds and that never in the history of home washers 
has there been such a tremendous inquiry and sale. Obviously 
there is a reason for this and the reason, to some extent, lies in 
the inability of many housewives to meet the present selling 
prices for laundry service. There are necessary economic 



Flat Work Selling Price 27 

problems surrounding the management of the laundry and these 
will, necessarily, require separate and individual treatment. 
On the whole, however, the writer believes that if volume is to 
be secured it can only be secured upon a fixed basis of charging 
for laundry service and upon a selling price that will meet the 
ability of the consumer to use it. In presenting the price of 7c 
per pound in connection with these tabulation, the writer does 
not take the position that this is an adequate selling price. It is 
simply used as a basis and there are conditions in certain cities 
where this should go to 8c or 9c or even 10c per pound. The 
question of other costs and especially the question of haul and 
volume are largely influential in fixing a price and the individual 
laundryowner must be guided by the conditions that exist in his 
own environment. What is done in Pittsburg or Cleveland may 
be totally wrong in application to Akron or Dayton. New York 
and Chicago are obliged to meet entirely different conditions 
from those in Cincinnati or St. Louis. The laundryowner is 
obliged to make a study of his own immediate territory and, as 
a result of this study, he should try to achieve the largest obtain- 
able volume with the shortest haul. The present ratio of 
delivery cost is abnormal. It has mounted to a very high 
percentage and means a cost which is entirely unreasonable in 
proportion to the responsibility and value of the labor performed. 
There must be a corrective treatment for this factor of cost as 
there is an indication of a still larger and growing cost in this 
direction and which is a menace to the business. The way to 
control delivery costs and, in fact, the way to put the proposi- 
tion on a better business basis is to fix on a rigid treatment of sell- 
ing prices. Competitive tactics and shallow knowledge of costs 
must yield to real recognized cost ascertainment and the price 
be fixed accordingly. In the judgment of the writer, 7c or 8c per 
pound for flat work and rough dry combined will yield a reason- 
able margin of profit. If all the other items on the list are fixed 
on a proportionate basis there will be no trouble in attracting 
volume at the 7c or 8c price. If, on the contrary, a fancy price 
or an illogical price is to be made on certain items it is most surely 
going to drive those items from the laundry. A very large 
amount of effort and labor has been expended on these tabulations 
and the laundryowner will find in them a large amount of valu- 
able information and which, if correctly used, must be of con- 
siderable assistance in reaching a judgment as to the selling 
price. The table which appeared in The Starchrck>m a number 
of years ago is again reprinted because it represents an average 
which is a fairly accurate exhibit of the averages that would 
result from the tabulations shown in the charts. 



Some Flat Work Figures 

By W. B. Haggerty. 



SO MUCH has been printed in The Starchroom relative to 
correct flat work prices that the writer prevailed on J. A.Chip- 
perfield, owner of the Twentieth Century Laundry, New York 
City, to weigh some restaurant work going through his plant for 
the purpose of ascertaining just what the income per pound would 
be for this work, which is now being done under the classified 
list of the Twentieth Century Laundry. Mr. Chipperneld, 
manages one of the successful flat work laundries in New York 
City. For those who are not familiar with conditions in the big 
city it will be well to state there are 24 laundries in that city who 
do practically nothing but flat work. Some of the laundries do 
private house flat work, but very few of them cater to this trade. 
The Twentieth Century has a private house list which is higher 
than is the list for hotels and restaurants, for instance private 
house work bundles have a minimum of $1, and the list for this 
work is as follows: 

Table Cloths 5c each 

Sheets 
Pillow Slips 

Roller Towels ^ 3c each 

Aprons 
Tops 

Bath Towels 2c each 

Chamber Towels ) ^^qq hundred 

Napkms \ 

Bath Mats) 10c each 

Spreads ) 

Also Lace Curtains and Blankets. 

Minimum Charge $1.00 for each lot. 

When no Pillow Slips are sent Sheets 4c. each. 

For extra large pieces. Linen Sheets, etc., Club 
Cloths, and any special work, an additional charge 
will be made. 

Our liability in the event of damage or loss is lim- 
ited to 20 times the charge for laundering. Higher 
adjustment values will be accepted on notice and 
upon payment of increased charge for such addi- 
tional liability. 



30 Pound Laundry Service 

**Send It To The Twentieth Century" 

The prices charged for hotel and restaurant work are some- 
what lower, as is the case in all cities, but the classified list has 
to a great degree helped solve the uncertain system of doing a 
restaurant or hotel job by the hundred pieces. The prices 
obtained for this class of work are as follov/s: 

Sheets 3c each 

Pillow cases 3c each 

Chamber tov/els per 100. . 60c to $1 

Bath towels 2 and 3c each 

Roller towels 3c each 

Scarfs 2c each 

Bolster cases 3c each 

Tops 2c and 3c each 

Table cloths 3c each 

Napkins per 100 50c to 75c 

Spreads 10c each 

Mattress covers 10c each 

Felts 10c each 

Bath mats 10c each 

The following table of figures show the number of pounds 
for each customer as it came in; also shows the amount which 
the Twentieth Century received on the classified list price, and 
also the amount which would be received if the w^ork was on a 
pound basis. The average for the 34 different accounts here 
is 5.86 per pound, which is entirely on restaurant work. The 
table follows: 



Number 


Amount of 


of 


Classified 


Pounds 


List 


229 


S9.41 


12 


.39 


66 


4.58 


72 


3.76 


16 


1.06 


18 


1.03 


29 


1.91 


30 


1.85 


18 


1.13 


144 


6.01 


11 


1.00 


31 


1.75 


129 


3.10 


13 


1.69 


306 


9.42 



Some Flat Work Figures 31 



Number 


Amount of 


of 


Classified 


Pounds 


List 


61 


3.28 


4.71 


20.66 


32 


1.49 


23 


1.86 


23 


1.66 


27 


1.36 


47 


2.10 


19 


1.06 


11 


1.09 


54 


2.94 


99 


3.68 


54 


2.32 


88 


3.70 


38 


2.22 


51 


3.12 


153 


9.27 


183 


11.34 


33 


2.51 


183 


11.34 


35 


2.36 



Total 2626 $126.11 

While there are several lots of weight exceeding 100 pounds, 
the average is 77 pounds and the average price for the 2626 
pounds is .048, or nearly 5 cents the pound. In view of this 
showing it is difficult to understand how some of our W'estern 
friends can quote hotel flat work at 3 and 4 cents a pound and 
expect to realize an adequate profit. The ratio of large and 
small pieces was not accurately established, but for the purpose 
of securing an average, 5813 pieces were counted resulting as 
follows: Table cloths, 101 ; tops, 582; towels, 301 ; napkins, 4,829. 

Mr. Chipperfield has made a study of the flat work business 
and has been getting higher prices than is the case with some of 
the flat work plants in New York, this being brought about by 
his decision many months ago to put his hotel and restaurant 
jobs on a classified price. He admits his prices are not high 
enough yet and maintains sheets should go to five cents and 
spreads to fifteen cents. 

It might interest all to know that the delivery cost at the 
Twentieth Century is down to a little over 10 per cent. This 
of course takes in both private, hotel and restaurant work. 
Mr. Chipperfield stated, however, the cost for private house 
delivery was just under 20 per cent. The system employed in 
the Twentieth Century on its delivery is so perfect that the 



32 Pound Laundry Service 

load for each route runs through the plant on schedule and is 
delivered to the private trade at exactly the same time and day 
each week. The work is scheduled to be through the laundry 
four hours ahead of the time for the drivers, and this allows 
taking care of all washovers. The result of this schedule elimi- 
nates the necessity of holding up the driver, and very few 
bundles are sent out short any pieces. When this is done, a slip 
is put in the bundle notifying the customer what pieces are short 
and these are delivered the following week. 



r 



See Page H for analysis, 



POUND LAUNDRY SERVICE 

Price to patrons, 7c the pound, all Flat Pieces Ironed, all other pieces 
Roughdry; 13c additional on the pound for Finishing the Roughdry 

Exhibit of Actual Averages based on 100 Bundles 

WINTER SEASON, NOVEMBER, 1917 

The C<.mt>ilalion larran^emenl b> S. Bachardthj is bv courtesy nf The Model Laundry Co.. Cincinnati. Ohio 




Bath Mat 
Bags, Pound 

Bed Tick 

Bolster Slips 
Blankets, Cotton 

Bibs 

Covers 

Comfort 

Draperies 
Doilies . . . 
Handkerchiefs, 
Silk 

Napkins 

Pillow Slip 

Pads 

Quilts. 0. 

R AGS 

ttucs 

Spreads 

Sheets 

Scarfs 

Tray Cloths 
Table Cover 
Table Pads 
Table Cloths. 
Towels, Roller 
Towels, Hand 
Towels, Bath 
Wash Rags 

Total 

Aprons 

Bands 

Belts 

Bath Robes 

Bibs 

Coats 

Combination: 
[ Corsets 
Chemisettes 
Chemise 
/Collars, Lace.. 
'CmBioH Covers 

Caps 

Cords 

Chair Cover 
Corset Covers 
Doll Pes 

UkAPERlES 

Dk.iwers, White 
Ukl SSES, Ch 

i)KI-.S!iES 

Drissisg Sacs 
F 

J.VCKETS 

■iVlOHT Shirts 
I Night Dressy 

N'RCKTIES 

OWKKM IS 



IcM thaa the propotcd price for finithed fafnily work. 



SUMMARY 



(In (he 100 bundles there were 1228 handkerchiefs, weighing 27K pounds. At 7 cents the pound or a total selling price of S1.92y, cents. 
The handkerchief factor is excluded from the calculation for reasons stated elsewhere in this article.) 



Pounds 

Present Selling Price at 7c the lb. 



'lassified Pound Weight of Each 
Bundle 



Ounce Weight of Each Pie 



777 
$54. J9 

$54.39 



481 
S33.67 

$96.20 

M 

4,1 



3i2 
$23.24 

$66 

H 



159U 
$111.30 

1216.99 

15|»i 



'Full List Price 

(For purpose of compari 



.'\VERACE Piece on List Price 



.54} 
$89.16 



3H 
$136.72 



$1.36 
.08,'o 



23i 
$136.73 



SI Hi 

$36>.61 



*The list selling price used in this calculation appears in this number i 



1 article by S. Bacharach, entitled "Laundr>' Service Pr 



d 



Pound Laundry Service 

By S. BACHARACH 



MORE than five years ago there was apparent the necessity 
for a more scientific basis for laundry service charges. 
Keen observers of the laundry situation discerned the 
conflicting results in balance sheets, noted with alarm the 
meager margins and realized the imperative necessity of placing 
the business on a correct economic basis. After searching analysis 
and investigation no justification, from a business view-point could 
be discovered for the varying prices of flat work. It was evident 
and in fact painfully plain that many managers were offering 
a service at prices below their real cost and persisting in the 
fallacy simply because of a mistaken policy in competitive 
tactics. As the full scope of this abuse came into consideration 
it was apparent that losses in the flat work department were 
being equalized by unreasonable advances for service in articles 
that were already yielding a substantial and satisfactory profit. 
A continuation of this policy would bring prohibitive and un- 
popular prices with resultant diminishment of volume and the 
flat work cancer still busily eating away the shadowy income. 
It was speedily found out that absence of a knowledge of costs 
was a fundamental detriment and this coupled with a reckless 
spirit of misguided competition created a situation that obviously 
demanded drastic treatment. Commercial diagnosis is an 
achievement, especially if the seat of the disease is located. 
To prescribe a proper remedy, to cure the ill, to make an at- 
tenuated profit a husky balance is a greater achievement, and 
the discovery of such a method is the purpose of this article and 
which is descriptive of plans now in the making. What shall 
be done to bring to the laundry a greater volume of business? 
How shall we increase income at a cost that will mean increased 
profit? Instead of curtailing volume by prohibitive prices how 
shall we speed up to get more business on a popular price? 
These and similar queries have doubtless been in the minds 
of hundreds of managers during the acute stress of the war 
period. There have been many attempts to find a solution, 
much effort to place matters in better shape and it is now pro- 
posed to initiate a discussion that may bring out the high 
lights and perhaps disclose a remedy. In the judgment of the 
writer, the logical channel for more business and the feasible 
point of attack is the project of "Finished Family Work." 
While this proposal has been continuously presented in The 
Starchroom, it is regrettable to point out that it has not re- 
ceived the consideration that its importance deserves. 



34 Pound Laundry Service 

The disinclination to grapple with this method of laundry 
service is perhaps due to the rather intricate questions involved, 
somewhat to the lack of an understanding of costs and also 
because of the very great diversity in men's and women's wear 
and which may largely influence the character of the rough-dry 
work. It has been the contention of the writer for a number 
of years that the scientific method for the sale of laundry service 
was by the pound. In conjunction with Mr. W. W. Riley, who 
prepared a very elaborate table showing the weights of the 
pieces in fiat work, the feasibility of this method was exploited 
and it was especially pointed out that it should be the favored 
method for hotel and restaurant fiat work. Subsequently, a 
number of articles appeared pointing out the value of a more 
amplified service for the household and which should include 
a standardized charge for the finished family work. In 1915 a 
report appeared in The Starchroom of a discussion in Cincinnati 
and in which this question was argued pro and con. 

Through the courtesy of a number of laundryowners, in- 
formation was compiled showing the work received from 3,012 
patrons who had sent 191,956 pieces and which weighed 48,191 
pounds. It was proved at that time that 40 per cent of this 
weight was rough dry, or unfinished, and of this 40 per cent 
there was approximately 3,855 pound.'' of starched work and 
which was principally women's wear. Since that calculation 
was made there has been a very considerable change in the style 
of women's wear and a large number of starched pieces then in 
use are now absent from the bundles. There has been an 
increase in the use of light-weight underwear in the Winter 
season and also a decrease in the weight of the fiat work. How- 
ever, these changes would not affect the ratio that was pre- 
viously obtained by more than 10 per cent and are really not 
material in the proposed new calculation. 

The feasibility of introducing Finished Family Work 
as a laundry service was proposed to the Model Laundry Co., 
of Cincinnati, and, through the courtesy of President Charles 
S. Riley and his staff, an investigation covering 100 pound 
bundles was made possible. For a number of years costkeeping, 
down to the most minute factor, has been made a science at 
the Model Laundry and the staff in charge of the executive 
departments is unusually keen and not prone to overlook a 
single iota of evidence that goes to make up costs. The table 
which follows this article has been prepared by these men at a 
very great expense of time and trouble and may be regarded 
as completely accurate. The facts disclosed and the method 
of tabulation make a basis for comparisons and the necessity 
of making these comparisons should be apparent to every 
laundry manager who is seeking a method to increase laundry 
volume. It is proposed to submit this information to laundry 



Pound Laundry Service 35 

manager? in different parts of the country and in an effort to 
get a like report and which information, when compiled, may 
afford a basis upon which to establish a standard system for 
the whole country. This is a consummation that will materi- 
ally help the business and will go a long way in establishing a 
standard from which to gauge costs. The basis of the present 
investigation at the Model Laundry Co. plant was 100 pound, 
of rough dry, bundles. The total weight, before washing, wa? 
LSOC pounds or practically an average of 16 pounds to the 
patron. In the tabulated classification of articles shirt waists 
appear but it is planned that the pound laundry service at 20c 
a pound will necessarily exclude starched shirts, collars and 
shirtwaists. Dividing the entire lot into three classifications, 
there was found 776K pounds flat work, 480^ pounds soft 
work and 332^ pounds of starched v/ork. The number of 
pieces were flat, 3510; soft, 1634; starched, 1049; a total of 
6193. These figures exclude 1228 handkerchiefs, weighing 
nyi lbs., which were in the hundred bundles but which are 
disregarded because the cost of the operation was not material 
in the calculation and also because no conclusion has been 
reached as to the advisability of an extra charge for hand- 
kerchiefs or an extra charge if the handkerchiefs sent exceed a 
certain limit. 

This entire lot of 1590 pounds is at present priced to the 
patron at 7c per pound, making a gross income of $111.30. 
Let us now proceed to consider how this lot will work out if 
treated on a method of finishing the soft and starched work and 
which the writer believes should be priced at 13c a pound extra 
or a total of 20c per pound. Let us eliminate the fractions and 
call the Flat 777 pounds, the Soft 481 pounds and the Starched 
332 pounds. The income will be as follows: 

777 pounds at 7c $ 54 . 39 

481 pounds at 20c 96.20 

332 pounds at 20c 66.40 

$216.99 
Present Income: 
1590 pounds at 7c 111.30 

Excess Income $105 . 69 

The problem now confronting us is to ascertain the extra 
expense or the cost for handling the finishing and which makes 
this excess income from the 100 customers. It should be 
remembered that our 7c price is already included and we are 
to deliver to the ironing room the soft and starched work. 
What is it going to cost to iron or finish the 481 pounds of soft 
and the 332 pounds of starched work? A number of investi- 



36 PovNn l.AiNDKv Skkvice 

gations discloses tliat the cost of the ironing room on tlie soft 
work, and which cost inchides the extra labor, padding, heat and 
overhead, will be approximately 2c a px^und. This will make 
a cost of S'^.o2. At this point it will be well to include the com- 
mission to the driver and which, on $105.6^ will be $10.57. 
There will also be an extra cost in paper or boxes and a slightly 
increased cost in the sorting. In my judgment, this will not 
exceed SIO. This makes a total of S30.10 and takes care of all 
of the costs with the exception of the ironing of the starched 
work. It must be conceded that this is the whole problem and 
around the cost of this character of the work revolves the 
feasibility or the undesirability of the proposition on the 20c 
basis. In the exhibit it will be found that the aggregate list 
prices for this 332 pounds of starched work is SU^o.To. Every 
fair-minded student of laundry prices will admit that our list 
price for the starched pieces in women's wear is a joke. No 
consideration whatever has been paid to a distinction between 
large and small, or fancy or plain pieces. A waist is a waist 
and a skirt is a skirt, and the top limit has been placed in the 
schedule in the fear that possibly there might be a loss of 5c or 
10c or 20c in doing an article. Styles have completely changed 
in the last five years. An exhaust i\e review of fashion plates 
and the personal report of several women investigators prove 
that fancy wear has gone out of style and that plain and easily 
ironed pieces largely predominate. In addition to this, there 
have been advances made in the methods of ironing and the 
system of pressing in the modern laundry makes a big saving 
in what was formerly a large cost. Percentage paid to ironers 
of women's wear ranges from 14 per cent to 25 per cent and, in 
every instance that has come under the observation of the 
writer, a very considerable saving could be elTccted by team 
work with the presses. If the price list with its abnormal 
charge is eliminated and the basic of charge is made on real 
work performed, it is believed by the writer that a maximum of 
10c a pound will cover the ironing cost of the starched work. 
This will make a total cost of S6vVv^9 on the additional income 
of $105.69, or a gross profit of $42.30. Let us be extremely 
liberal and split this profit in half and .*how a profit of $21.15 
on this extra income of $105.09. It will require very little 
argument to show that this is a larger ratio thaiv the best 
managed plants can show on their total volume. 

It will bo noted that the exhibit of the Model Laundry Co. 
is for the \\'inter season and for the month of November. 
There is a vast difierence in the pound work of the Summer 
months as compared with that of the Winter and it is conceded 
that in the Sinnmer months the large amount of light weight 
underwear and the scarcity of heavy weight and woolen pieces 
will make a considerable dilTerence in this calculation. How- 



POUND LAUNDRY SERVICE 

Price to patrons, 7c the pound, all Flat Pieces Ironed, all other pieces 
Roughdry; 13c additional on the pound for Finishing the Roughdry 

Exhibit of Weight and Pieces of 100 Bundles 



SUMMER SEASON, AUGUST, 1917 



See page 37 for flnal)'sis 



The Compilalion, (arrangement by 5- Bachai 



i by courtesy of The Mode! Laundrv' Co.. Cit 





PIECES 1 


No. 


PIECES 


Weight 
Pounds 


SELLING PRICE 




nil 


Soil 


Suicl 


ToMi 


FI.1 


Soli 


Sluth 


ToiJ 


Po™d,(3 7 m. IfMnil, F.@ IJto. 


TOTAL 


. 


8 
31 

8 

5 
12 

7 
44 






8 
31 

8 

5 
12 

7 
44 


1 

2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 


42 
37 
12 
27 
12 
81 
3i 
53 
37 
80 
61 
21 
46 
44 
35 
87 
29 
49 
22 
36 
39 
46 
32 
25 
37 
55 
52 
11 
102 
107 
28 
46 
40 
30 
54 
51 
48 
30 
36 
35 
32 
43 


3 

25 

3 

8 
14 

9 
25 

8 
10 
28 
20 
51 
26 

9 
11 
17 
12 
20 

6 
19 
28 
31 

6 
12 
11 
IS 
IS 
10 
25 
20 

8 
19 

5 
18 

9 
12 
18 
IS 
30 

2 
11 
45 


11 
14 

3 

8 

10 
11 

8 

19 
14 
16 
30 
14 

7 
21 
32 
10 

7 

8 
25 
19 
16 

4 
15 
11 

7 

17 
31 
26 
18 
19 

1 

7 

12 
12 

9 

8 
11 
24 

3 
14 
22 


56 
76 
18 
43 
31 

100 
69 
69 
66 

122 
97 

102 
86 
60 
67 

136 
51 
76 
36 
80 
86 
93 
42 
52 
S9 
77 
84 
52 

153 

145 
55 
66 
52 
60 
75 
72 
74 
56 
90 
40 
57 

110 


17 
13 

to 

10 
10 
35 
10 
14 
18 
21 
23 
21 
18 
IS 
16 
33 
11 
16 
10 
20 
21 
20 
10 
14 
14 
16 
20 
10 
30 
26 
17 
12 
11 
15 
15 
17 
19 
11 
20 
16 
15 


$115 99 1 $64 87 




























BwB 






which appeared in the December 








number of The Starchroom 








was by actual survey. The.Xug- 








ust exhibit is compiled from the 


TftlmBq 


5 

45 

I 

1362 

6 

351 

7 

396 

1 

1 

296 

62 

347 

13 

97 

8 

3 

263 

635 

44 

63 

139 






5 

45 

1 

1362 

6 

351 

7 

396 

1 

1 

296 

62 

347 

13 

97 

8 

3 

263 

635 

44 

63 

139 


patrons lists which had been re- 


DnntiHt 






tiined but which did not contain 








the separation of soft and starch- 








ed pieces by weight. In the 








absence of the itemized weight 








of each classification in the 


Pads 






bundle the total weiglit of flat 








pieces is presented and whicli 








weight is based on an actual 








calculation from the table of 








ounce weights of llat pieces and 








which table has been proved 








substantially accurate. De- 








ducting the flat weight thus 








ascertained of 1158 pounds from 








the total weight of 1 657 pounds 








for the 100 bundles makes a 








weight of 499 pounds for the 








combined soft and starch pieces 








and which, at the additional 








price of 13c the pound, produces 








a total additional income of 








$64.87. 




4260 






4260 


The executive stalT of the 














6 


212 


218 


tention to the item of dresses in 






the column of starch pieces. 












In the November exhibit there 






2 


22 
4 
13 


24 
4 
18 








at the regular selling list price 


Caps 




5 


did not exceed 30c each. In 






the .August exhibit the dresses 








24 


24 


are increased to 178 and in the 










es these 
Iv from 


Coats 










43 

44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
SO 
51 
52 
S3 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 

ToTU 


47 
13 
42 
36 
32 
3i 
42 
15 
64 
28 
35 
30 
49 
47 
50 
40 
44 
44 
20 
119 
104 
43 
23 
24 
52 
15 
35 
28 
100 
48 
89 
27 
31 
93 
76 
25 
44 
40 
76 
42 
40 
38 
21 
22 
U 
56 
25 
18 
25 
S3 
4« 
54 
28 
35 
3J 
24 
23 
45 


43 

11 
18 
16 

1 
12 
30 
30 
14 
22 

4 

11 
11 

5 
14 
17 
16 

8 
55 

7 
17 

8 
33 
IS 

7 

4 

8 
29 

S 
22 

1 

10 
4 
U 
15 
12 

23 
30 

8 

1 
11 

5 
26 
14 

11 

10 
14 


10 

4 
12 
10 

6 

10 

8 

9 
28 
13 
16 
21 

7 

5 
10 
17 
35 

8 
58 

4 
25 
19 
17 
20 

4 

8 

6 
15 
22 
10 

2 

13 
16 
48 
16 

5 
46 
39 
16 

9 
22 
12 
14 
24 
12 
11 
12 

3 
12 

5 

8 

8 
10 
10 

4 
13 
13 


100 
28 
72 
62 
33 
51 
82 
S3 
87 
78 
52 
53 
81 
65 
60 
64 
78 
95 
36 
232 
115 
85 
SO 
74 
87 
26 
47 
42 
144 
7S 
121 
34 
51 
I4S 
176 
51 
S3 
97 
130 
70 
56 
83 
63 
44 
39 
79 
41 
56 
42 
91 
52 
69 
52 
52 
53 
38 
50 
65 


15 
10 
13 
14 
12 
12 
13 
13 
17 
22 
14 
14 
22 
IS 
15 
17 
17 
24 
10 
57 
26 
19 
11 
16 
16 
10 
10 
10 

26 

26 

25 

12 

12 

21 

30 

12 

17 

25 

22 

12 

13 

21 

11 

10 

10 

16 

16 

10 

10 

17 

IC 

13 

IS 

10 

18 

II 

15 

16 


would run approximate 






20 

174 


9 

47 
2 
1 

85 

i ' 


29 

221 

2 

1 

91 
7 
3 


SOc to SI. This radical differ- 






ence should not prove discon- 






certing and there should be a 






6 

7 


suspension of judgment until 






more proof is adduced as to the 






character of this item and also 


Doll Pes 




as to the cost hazard that it may 








present. The exhibits are only, 






21 


108 
178 


129 
178 








and one in Summer and, ob- 


DlESSES, Ch 






viously, do not refute the claim 












that this evidence does not 












present adequate information 






10 
3 


2' 


10 

5 










, iCnioNAs 




many laundryowners that a 






I 
21 
52 
44 

6 
40 
15 


■'■■58' 
9 


1 
21 
110 
44 

6 
40 
24 
































































4 
141 


4 
141 












SeuiFs 








S«Aii B 




3 


1 


4 




Sbau P 




slips. The flat weight of 1 158 


^AWLS 
















91 

2 

315 

264 


203 


294 

2 

315 

264 










Socks ' 






















1 




1 


starch in the .'Xugust week weigh 


Atbaters 




nVsLE Covers 










■ TU>i£s 








a total i>f 2990 pieces and which 












1 Undbrdrawers 

' uwdershirts 

Wisre 


90 

' 100 

\ 154 


3 


90 
100 

157 


Several exjjert laundryowner* 
and who have made a study of 
piece prices present labor coat 
figures in this number of The 
Starchroom which would seem 
to minimize the cost hazard that 
is pointed out by some of the 
critics as being especially dan- 
gerous in the ironing of starch 
pieces in the Summer season. 
Laundr>-owncrs who desire to 
compile statistics of a parallel 
nature may, without a>st, secure 
from The Starchroou Pub. 
LISHINC Co. printed tabular 
forms with blank sp.ices and 


35 

75 
8 


199 

77 
7 


234 
152 
15 




^W*APPE« 




j 




1 Totals 




1571 


1419 


2990 






IGrand Total 








7250 


; 






_126C_ 


1-71 


1410 


7250 


1657 


alre.idy presente,! 





<Ti;' 



Pound Laundry Service 37 

ever, that phase of the matter is being investigated and if the 
difference is material an adjustment can be reached. The present 
purpose is to demonstrate, or rather to urge, the adoption of a 
pound system as being the most scientific, the s iplest and the 
best selling proposition in the line of laundry service. This 
volume of business is now coming into the laundry. Is it not 
a logical conclusion that we escape a great deal of costs by getting 
a larger income on something that we are already handling? 
This excess income if it shows only a small profit will decrease 
overhead and it does more than that. It stabilizes the business, 
it gives a service to the housewife that is perfect in its com- 
pleteness. It gives more earning to the routeman and, by reason 
of larger income from the wagon, it will decrease delivery 
expense ratio. 

There is a menace and a possibly acute depression in the 
coming months if laundry volume is not increased. Is this plan 
for finished family work feasible? Is the service price correct? 
Or, in the judgment of our readers, is it inadequate, dispropor- 
tionate or unobtainable? Criticism of these several claims is 
invited and every laundry manager is earnestly asked to co- 
operate in giving this measure consideration and study and in 
giving the laundry world his judgment as to its advisability. 



A current humorous anecdote about a negro waiter and two 
travelling salesmen has a significant moral. "Sambo" said Mr. 
Salesman, "I want an order of ham and eggs." 

"I'll have the same," said the other, "but eliminate the 
eggs." Presently Sambo returned with an apologetic expression 
"Sorry, boss, but you'll have to have your eggs some other 
way, the chef just broke the 'liminator." 

Unfortunately for many years the "liminator" has been 
"broke" in laundry management and unprofitable phases of 
service pricing have been allowed to keep full sway to the 
detriment of a profitable showing. The retrospect is not 
charming and might well be forgotten if it did not contain many 
experiences which may now be used to point the way for the 
avoidance of similar blundering. In one of the admirable state 
papers of President Cleveland, he concisely and cogently sum- 
marized an adverse situation by pointing out that the nation 
was confronted by a condition and not a theory. For some 
years the laundry trade theorized and constructed fences for 
fancied protection. Some of the fences afforded real security 
but in many instances they were found to be created barriers 
of uncommercial basis and the comparative ease of laundry 
management of those days as against the present problem lulled 
the trade into a condition of false security. 



38 



Pound Laundry Service 



Summary 

(In the 100 bundles there were 1228 handkerchiefs, weighing 21% 
pounds. At 7 cents the pound or a total selling price oj %\.92}4 cents 
The handkerchief factor is excluded from the calculation for reasons stated 
elsewhere in this article.) 



Flat 



Soft 



Starch 



Total 



Pounds 

Present Selling Price, at 7c the lb 

Proposed Selling Price — 

7c flat; 20c finished 



Classified Pound Weight of Each 
Bundle 



Ounce Weight of Each Piece 
Pieces 



Average by Classification on 7c 
Selling Price for Each Bundle 

*FuLL List Price 

(For purpose of comparison only) 

Average on Classification of Bun- 
dle at List Selling Price 



777 
$54.39 

$54.39 

..7K.. 

5-i- 
3510 

.54-i- 
.16 



Average Piece on List Price . 



Classified Selling Price on Fin- 
ished Family List 



$0.89 
.02-i- 

$54.39 



481 
$33.67 

$96.20 

H- 

4+ 
1634 

$136.72 

$1.36 
•08tV 

$96.20 



332 

$23, 



24 81 



1590 
11.30 



$66.40 
3+ 

1049 

.23-i- 
$136.73 

$1.37 
.13 

$66.40 



$216.99 

6193 

Sl.ll-i- 
$362.61 

$3.62 



$216.99 



*The list selling price used in this calculation appears in this number 
in an article by S. Bacharach, entitled "Laundry Service Prices." 



\ 



Pound Laundry Service 39 

The economies that have been enforced in the past several 
years prove that there was an undoubted extravagance in the 
period before the war. The considerable loss of volume whether 
by new styles in men'sor women's wear or by war or any other reason 
should not so seriously menace the trade. It does, however, 
conclusively demonstrate that laundry management had been 
along traditional lines of fixed rigidity in expense ratio without 
a concern for the necessary flexibility for increased or diminished 
turnover. Peak loads and lost motion on one-half of Mondays 
and Saturdays were regarded as unchangeable factors, real 
costs were disregarded in service selling of flat work, unusual 
and illogical agency discounts were recklessly maintained and 
when the slump came, there were no reserves to meet the unusual 
condition. If this attempted analysis is conceded as a true view 
of the situation, we may try to forget the past except for the 
lesson taught and seek the remedy or betterment that is to 
brighten the future. I have been able to attract a great many 
converts to the theory that the weight on pound basis is the 
scientific method of selling flat work service. In the past five 
years the soundness of such a method has been emphasized and 
in cities where it has been correctly applied, it is meeting with 
satisfactory results to patron and laundryowner. 

The extension of the theory to include finished family work 
has met with a gratifying interest and the necessity of estab- 
lishing this branch of the business on a scientifically stable basis 
is apparent in the discussion that has been produced. It is diffi- 
cult to meet objections that project adverse views, because 
costs, either pre-determined or offered by others, do not sustain 
every angle of the proposed price. I am not prepared to say 
that 13 cents is the final and only correct price for a pound of 
finished family work. I recognize the variance that must 
naturally come from differing experiences in widespread locali- 
ties, but I do claim that from costs exhibits thus far offered and 
from personal investigation that the price is logical. Making 
deductions from 100 bundles in one laundry is concededly an 
unsafe average. There is however, the certainty from averages 
already at hand that this is not going to be a barrier to the 
analysis. If there can be secured a report showing the contents 
by weight and classification in twenty or thirty cities, I am 
satisfied it will reassure my critics who are reluctant to accept 
this one exhibit as a satisfactory basis for the introduction of a 
system. It has however, these distinctive merits: It will be 
based on a real knowledge of costs, it will mean more equality 
in pricing, and unless the cost calculation is in error, it will 
mean more volume and profit. A number of queries are directed 
at the physical difficulty of this new proposed department. 
My effort is to prove that the unfinished contentsofaroughdryor 
pound bundle can be finished for a price of 13 cents. If the business 



40 Pound Laundry Service 

grows and the proposition is profitable, the separate department 
which will mean specializing will reduce the cost of production. 
It will certainly mean more efficiency and system in what is now 
a department conducted largely on the hit or miss plan. In 
Kansas City (Missouri) the Gillpatrick Laundry has a separate 
or distinct department for exclusively finished family work. 
Separate building, separate equipment, and a force of employees 
doing only this work. Finishing the work and which includes 
flat work is priced by a liberal concession from a schedule of 
prices which are shown in an accompanying paper by Mr. H. H. 
Gillpatrick at the 1915 Indiana Convention. Nothing is marked 
and compartment washwheels and a plan of segregation of each 
bundle is followed. For the present I shall disregard the cost 
analysis in Mr. Gillpatrick's paper and only compare the gross 
income on his plan as against the 13 cent plan. For 112 bundles, 
the total income is $190, divided into flat $38, and finished $152. 
This is an average per patron of 34 cents for fiat and $1.36 for 
finished, a total of $1.70, or for 100 patrons, an aggregate of 
$170. In the exhibit I submitted in the December Starchroom, 
the income from 100 patrons on a basis of 7 cents the pound, 
and 13 cents additional for finishing would be $216.99. This is a 
radical increase and would seem to indicate that my price is 
high although the absence of specific classification precludes an 
accurate comparison. A second example by Mr. Gillpatrick 
is of 1788 pounds; 1041 pounds flat and 747 pounds finished, 
bringing an income of $184.98. On the proposed basis this 
would bring an income of $222.27. In both examples flat work 
is at about 4J^ cents and which if equalized with the 7 cent 
price will show that in Mr. Gillpatrick's plan he is charging 
approximately 20 cents a pound for finished work. The execu- 
tive staff of the Model Laundry Company of Cincinnati is 
deliberating on the seasonal character of pound work and is not 
convinced that the work in the summer months would not be a 
handicap. By their courtesy I am enabled to exhibit a tabula- 
tion from the month of August, in comparison with the exhibit 
from November. The classification of contents of each separate 
bundle and the full list price is omitted as being immaterial 
at this time. The classification by prices conforms to the 
method of tabulation in the November exhibit, but the classified 
weights were not obtainable. In November the weight of 
100 bundles was 1590 pounds against 1657 pounds in August. 
The pieces, however, that go to make up this excess in the 
summer months are increased as follows: 

Flat Soft Starch Total 

Pieces— August 4260 1571 1419 7250 

Pieces— November... ^3510 1634 1049 6193 

Excess 750 370 1057 

Decrease 63 63 

Total Increase Pieces. . 994 



Pound Laundry Service 41 

When it comes to this difference of 1034 pieces in a summer week 
as against a winter week, some of my critics have adopted the 
motto of the gentleman from Missouri. But after all, the differ- 
ence is not serious except in the starch pieces and, of course, 
that is the "nigger in the woodpile." In the flat pieces the big 
jump is in sheets, 347 as against 134, but the increase in the small 
pieces is not a material cost. The two exhibits are placed in a 
tabular form for easy comparison. The reader is solicited to 
make his own deductions, estimate the cost and present his 
conclusions. We need more light in the way of exhibits. We 
should know the experience of plants paying operators on piece 
work as compared with daily or weekly wage. When I have 
established the feasibility of the proposed schedule from a cost 
viewpoint, I shall in a subsequent article consider the marketing 

of the service. 

* * * 

My attention has been directed to the wide divergence in 
the reports of costs incurred in the several phases of laun- 
dry turnover. Exhibits of flat work costs range from $2 to 
$5 for 100 pounds; ironing women's wear by piece prices 
ranges from 7% to 25% on the basis of list prices; shirt 
ironing ranges from $1.75 to $3.25 the hundred taking shirts 
from the extractor and all along the line the different costs show 
a striking absence of uniformity and a disparity which may well 
call for amazement. My friendly critic inquires "how are you 
going to reconcile these conflicting elements and in the face of 
this showing can you reasonably expect to establish a standard 
price for a pound laundry service?" The query is involved 
and presents two phases which may well constitute a complex 
problem but which I do not consider it within my province to 
solve. I am not concerned in any process that means a recon- 
ciliation of the differing claims of costs. As I have pointed out 
repeatedly this phase of accounting is a science and the certified 
and public accountants are prone to disagree on some of the 
principles of accounting and especially on methods of deprecia- 
tion. It would be an impossible task to analyze the costs in the 
different exhibits because many managers have overhead charges 
of radical difference in character and especially is this true on 
administration and sales salaries. 

My chief concern is to base a price for pound laundry 
service on the experience of the expert laundry manager and 
to build on that cost a fair margin of profit. In the judgment 
of a number of keen observers of laundry practice it is not un- 
reasonable to expect a net margin of 15% on the turnover and 
from which should be taken a reserve for depreciation. My 
expectation, or rather my plea, for a uniform price on pound 
laundry service is based, as I have stated, on the experience of 
experts in a number of plants. I find that in the experience of 



42 Pound Laundry Service 

a great many laundry managers the margin has not approximated 
10% and my reason for advocating a 15% margin is to discount 
the probable higher costs which it is beheved will confront the 
trade in coming years. When you consider a fixed price for a 
service you must also consider the public and determine if your 
price is popular, if it is reasonable and if, more than all else, 
it will stand against competition. The 7c price for a pound of 
rough dry and the 13c additional charge for finishing rough dry 
make a total price for the housewife v/hich is, if anything, below 
her cost if she employs a private laundress. It is easy to believe 
that the power laundry with its resources, with its efficiency, 
should not only parallel the effort of the private laundress, bat 
it should cheapen or lower the price of that work. This con- 
tention is the vital point in this discussion and if it can be proved 
that the laundry manager can make 15% margin on the basis of 
this price then the proposition is not only feasible but it is 
urgently advisable. 

The laundry business has passed successfully through a 
number of well defined stages. In the pioneer condition, and 
which dates back only fifty or sixty years, it was necessary to 
fix a price that would attract volume as it was a novel business, 
new to the public and which was exceedingly reluctant to shatter 
the traditions that clung around "blue Monday" and ironing 
day. Then came the newer condition when laundries became 
more numerous and competitive tactics forced an unwise regu- 
lation of prices and which were illy adjusted and illogical from a 
viewpoint of cost. The present condition which confronts the 
laundry manager is so abnormal that it would not be wise to 
predicate future plans on its tangled and extraordinary costs. 
We can, however, prepare for the future and by taking the past 
experience into consideration arrange for a price that will stand 
unusual conditions and which, at the same time, will protect 
the business by offering the housewife a really economic service 
at a lesser cost than she can do it herself. It will not do to base 
objections to this price by quoting individual items and by claim- 
ing that the rate is prohibitive. A sheet weighing 22 ounces 
brings an income, under the 7c pound rate, of QJE^c and even 
if it is considered as an individual unit it is a reasonable price. 
I am considering the private household work and not the volume 
work that comes from hotel, restaurant, or other big users. 
I am told that 7 cent flat price is an advance of over 200% on the 
price charged three or four years ago. Of course it is, but the 
price charged in the olden days was less than cost and does not 
afford a satisfactory basis for analysis. 

The selling argument in Pound Laundry Service lies in the 
big advantage to the housewife of sending all her work to the 
laundry and getting a total price which makes the piece price a 
very nominal outlay. It is not fair to consider only sheets, 



Pound Laundry Service 43 

slips and spreads, and there must be taken into consideration 
the small pieces which go to reduce the average price. It will be 
remembered that at the St. Louis Convention the accountant 
for the L, N. A. stated that the lowest flat work cost he had been 
able to find on hotel work was $2.22 per hundred pounds. This 
is for volume work and obviously the marking and sorting of 
household work would mean a very much increased cost. 
Despite this the 7c price and the 13c additional price for finish 
brings to the housewife a service that is certainly economical. 

In the January number the several comments may, to some 
extent, be considered to have borne out the contention that 13c 
for finishing is a logical price. The exhibit of the Carolyn 
Laundry and the trial of the proposition by the Star-Palace 
Laundry both vindicate my judgment. The exhibit of a summer 
week by the Model Laundry is not of an encouraging nature. 
Until we can more accurately determine ironing costs of women's 
wear we shall have that phase of the problem to master. In this 
number there is presented a schedule or tabulation showing 
the weights of different items of women's wear and from this 
may be deduced to a certain extent the probable cost. The 
piece price plan for ironing that is used in the Star-Palace 
Laundry is the result of many years of study and as this plant 
is recognized as being under expert management ^hose prices 
may be regarded as correct remuneration for the labor. They 
do not differ radically from prices in Cincinnati nor from the 
percentage plan in the Carolyn laundry. There is a general 
agreement that the profit on flat and soft work is satisfactory 
and, in a spirit of fair bargaining, it should be conceded that if 
we can obtain costs for women's wear that we will be very 
greatly ahead in the game. It must be remembered that the 
methods of laundry practice have been greatly improved within 
the past five years. New and original methods have been 
adopted and there has been an elimination of excess costs and 
an undoubted improvement in efficiency. The facilities for 
better laundry practice have also been improved and these 
newer factors remove, to a very large extent, the intricate 
problem that was presented in the ironing room when everything 
was done by hand. 

Assuming that women's wear does bring a large number of 
pieces we should not be dazed by the quantity but rather should 
take into consideration the actual time that will be consumed 
in the ironing. In reference to the several criticisms that there 
should be no classification or restriction on waists, etc., I cannot 
agree. In all service propositions there are classifications and 
if we are to give a really economical price we must compel a 
higher price when the service requires extra labor or considera- 
tion. The postal department, the express and freight carriers, 
the telegraph and telephone utilities, and all service companies 



44 Pound Laundry Service 

are necessarily obliged to make classifications. No housewife 
can find a reasonable objection to excluding a shirtwaist, es- 
pecially as she knows that it could not profitably come within 
the low price that is placed on the other work. Shirts ajid 
collars have always been excluded and the one item of shirt- 
waists should not be a bar in the mind of anyone for a favorable 
consideration of Pound Laundry Service. The project of Pound 
Laundry Service welds into a well-balanced scheme several 
phases of service w^hich are now giving trouble because of their 
complexity. No one blames the housewife for juggling the 
weekly bundle to the best price advantage. It is the business 
duty of the laundry manager to make a price for a service that 
will permit of no differentials and which will give equal advan- 
tages to all and eliminate special favors. I again contend and 
every observation that it has been my privilege to make in a 
number of laundries emphasizes the claim that there should be 
no list price of individual flat work items. The pound price 
should prevail and the pound price should be identical with the 
rough dry price and thereby escape all of the argument that is 
now unfortunately injected into the laundry management. 
The February number presents an exhibit from Spokane, Wash., 
and while the experience dates back two years the method of 
handling the proposition is certainly along the right line. 

Through the courtesy of the Model Laundry Co., of Cin- 
cinnati, I have had access to a tabulation showing the weight 
in ounces of each piece of women's wear. I have prepared a 
tabulation making the comparisons easily accessible and the 
exhibit should prove useful. The flat work comparisons should 
convince the fair-minded reader that the 7 cent price per pound 
is a sound selling price. 



Pound Laundry Service 45 

Table of Weights — Comparison of Prices. 

Ounce weight of articles sent in Pound-work, Rough-dry and Flat, 
with price per piece at 7 c per lb., rate, 20 c per lb. F. F., also Piece 
Price. The sales price of 7c the lb., brings the ounce sales price to 
4yi mills, and the 20c price for family finished brings the ounce 
sales price to lyi, cefits the ounce. 



ARTICLES 



Aprons — small white 

small colored 

bar 

regular colored 

bungalow 

bungalow 

Belts 

Bath Robes 

Coats — bar, white 

bar, colored 

Combinations — fleece lined 

OR Union Suits — wool 

cotton 

lady's, cotton, 
child's, cotton 
men's B. V. D 

Corset Covers — light 

heavy 

Chemise — muslin 

Collars — soft 

Cushion Covers — light 

heavy 

Caps, Dust — light 

heavy 

Cords 

Chair Covers — small 

medium 

large 

couch 

Corset — light 

heavy 

Drawers, White — heavy 

muslin 

fine white . . . . 
child's light. . 
child's heavy. 



Wght 

Ozs 



iX4 

6 

7>^ 
8>^ 
10 

'A 

32 
13>^ 

\iy, 

30 

2\y2 

19K 

9^ 
4^ 
5 

\A 
2>^ 
4^ 

IK 

7 
14X 
20>^ 
30 
10 

^4 

4>^ 
3K 

2y2 



7c lb. 

Price 



005 
019 
,026 
,032 
,037 
,043 
.002 
.14 
.062 
.058 
.131 
.094 
.085 
.042 
.02 
.021 
.006 
.011 
.019 
.002 
.006 
.015 
.002 
.005 
.006 
.03 
.064 
.089 
.131 
.043 
.073 
.028 
.019 
.015 
.006 
.011 



20c lb. 
Price 



.015 
055 
075 
094 

125 
006 
,40 
,168 
,159 
.375 
.268 
.243 
.121 
.053 
.062 
.018 
.031 
.055 
.006 
.018 
.043 
.006 
.015 
.018 
.087 
.178 
.256 
.375 
.125 
,2C9 
.081 
.055 
.043 
.018 
.031 



Piece 
Price 



.06 

.06 

.06 

.07 

.12 

.15 

.03 

.30 

.15 

.15 

.18 

.24 

.18 

.18 

.14 

.14 

.10 

.10 

.12>^ 

.03>^ 

.06 

.12 

.06 

.06 

.02>^ 

.10 

.20 

.25 

.40 

.25 

.25 

.12 

.12 

.12 

.06 

.06 



46 



Pound Laundry Service 



ARTICLES 



Dresses, Child's — white, heavy.. 

white, light 

white, light. . . . 
colored, heavy, 
colored, light. . 

Dresses, Lady's — fine white 

coarse white . . . . 

colored, house. . 

Dressing Sacque — outing flannel . 

colored 

Jackets 

Night Shirts — heavy 

light 

outing flannel 

Night Dresses — light 



Neckties 
Overalls 



heavy 

outing flannel, 
outing flannel. 



light, coat 

light, pants 

heavy, coat 

heavy, pants 

Pajamas — outing flannel, coat. . 
outing flannel, pants. 

Pajamas — muslin, coat 

mUslin, pants 

Pants — work 

Portiers — heavy 

light 

Sweaters — wool, coat 

cotton, coat 

Socks — light 

heavy 

Stockings — light 

heavy 

Sash Curtains — long, heavy . . . 
long, light.... 
short, heavy. . 
short, light. . . 

Skirts — lady's top, white 

lady's under, white. . . . 
lady's outing flannel. . . 
ladv's colored 



Ozs. 



7c lb. j 20c lb. 
Price I Price 



2 

sy 

14K 
19 

8 
5K 



14 
11 
15 

10 
12 
15 

18K 
19 

25y2 

7 
6 
4>^ 
4>^ 



14 
19 



4>^ 

sy 

2 

sy 

6 

ey 
11 



024 
006 
008 
024 
015 
064 
083 
058 
035 
024 



.061 

.048 

.065 

.031 

.043 

.052 

.065 

.001 

.062 

.081 

.083 

,111 

,30 

,026 

,019 

,019 



.061 
.083 
.002 
.005 
.004 
.009 
.035 
.019 
.015 
.008] 
.037 
,026 
,028 
048 



.068 

.018 

.025 

.068 

.043 

.178 

.237 

.159 

.10 

.068 



.175 

.137 

.187 

.09 

.125 

.15 

.187 

.003 

.168 

.230 

.237 

.318 

.087 

.075 

.055 

.055 



.175 

.237 

.006 

.015 

.012 

.028 

.10 

.055 

.043 

.025 

.106 

.075 

.081 

.137 



Piece 
Price 



.20 
.20 
.20 
.15 
.15 
.75 
.40 
.30 
.17 
.17 
.30 
.12 
.12 
.12 
.15 
.15 
.15 
.15 
.06 
.17>^ 

.ny 
.17 y 
Aiy 

.10 

.10 

.10 

.10 

.30 

.30 

.25 

.30 

.30 

.03ea 

.03ea 

.03ea 

.03ea 

.15 

.15 

.07K 

.07>^ 

.35 

.25 

.20 

.20 



Pound Laundry Service 



47 



ARTICLES 



Skirts — child's under 

Under Waists — child's, cotton 

child's muslin 

Under Vests — lady 

Under Shirts — child's, light 

child's, heavy 

men's, light 

men's, heavy 

men's, fleeced 

men's wool 

men's, wool 

men's, B. V. D 

lady's, light 

lady's, heavy 

Under Drawers — child's, light 

child's, heavy 

lady's light 

heavy cotton 

wool 

men's, light 

men's, light 

men's, heavy 

men's, fleece lined . 

men's, wool 

men's, B. V. D.... 

Vests — men's white 

men's white 

Work Shirts — blue, collar 

negligee 

plaited 

flannel 

flannel 

Wrappers — light 

outing flannel, heavy 

Waists — boy's, white 

boy's, colored 

lady's, white, light 

lady's, white, light 

lady's, white, heavy 

lady's, colored 

lady's, middy 

small middy 



W'ght 

Ozs. 



iy2 
iy2 

2 

10 
12 
16 
12 
14 

S% 

2>y2 

5 

5>< 

6>^ 

7 

9 

10 
16 

ny2 

3 
6 

13K 

iy 
sy 

13 

14K 

7 

ley 

sy 

4 

2 

ly 

3. 

4 



W 



7c lb. 
Price 



on 

Oil 

.006 

.008 

.023 

.037 

.043 

.052 

.07 

.052 

.061 

.015 

.023 

.036 

.015 

.021 

.023 

.028 

.03 

.039 

.043 

.07 

.082 

.052 

.013 

.026 

.06 

.031 

.037 

.042 

.056 

.063 

.03 

.072 

.025 

.017 

.008 

.012 

.025 

.017 

.04 

.015 



20c lb. 

Price 



.031 

.031 

.018 

.025 

.065 

.106 

.125 

.15 

.20 

.15 

.175 

.043 

.065 

.103 

.043 

.062 

.065 

.081 

.087 

.112 

.125 

.20 

.324 

.156 

.037 

.075 

.165 

.09 

.106 

.121 

.162 

.181 

.087 

.206 

.071 

.05 

.025 

.034 

.071 

.05 

.115 

.043 



Price 
Piece 



.15 
.06 
.06 
.06 
.08 
.08 
.09 
.09 
.09 
.12 
.12 
.07 
.09 
.09 
.08 
.08 
.09 
.09 
.12 
.09 
.09 
.09 
.09 
.12 
.07 
.20 
.20 
.13 
.13 
.17 
.20 
.20 
.25 
.25 
.12 
.12 
.30 
.30 
.35 
.20 
.20 
.20 



FLAT PIECES 



ARTICLES 



Bed Ticks 

Bolster Slips 

Blankets — single cotton H . 

single wool 

double cotton H 
double wool 

Comfort 



DOILIE 

Handkerchiefs , 
Napkin 



Pillow Slips 

Quilts 

Rags 

Spreads — large, light 

large, regular 

small, light 

small; regular 

Sheets 

Scarfs 

Tray Cloths 

Table Cloths, wght.& piece price p. yd. 

Roller Towels 

Hand Towels 

Bath Towels 

Wash Rags 



W'ght 
Ozs. 



44 

8| 
40 
32 
56 
56 
96 
124 

2 

4 
9 

2 

4K 
48 

1| 
16 
50 



21 

22 
3 
H 

H 

1 



7c. lb 
Price 



.192 

.037 

.175 

,14 

,245 

,245 

,42 

,542 

,002 

,001 

,006 

,008 

,019 

,21 

,005 

,218 



,091 
,096 
,013 
,014 
.037 
,025 
,013 
.032 
.004 



Piece 
Price 



.13 
.05 
.15 
.30 
.30 
.60 
.40 
.40 
.02 
.02 
.01 
.01 
.03 
.20 
.01 
.15 
.15 
.08 
.08 
.06 
.05 
.05 
.03 
.03 
.02 
.03 
.01 



HOTEL WORK (Flat) Pound Rates 

Weight taken from 12 pieces of each article and based on that average weight. 



ARTICLES 



Bolster Case 

Napkin 

Pillow Case 

Sheets 

Spreads 

Table Cloths, yd 

Roller Towels 

Hand Towels 

Bath Towels 

Tray Cloths 

All Pieces 

Leaving out Spreads 

Leaving out sheets and 
spreads — only small pes 



Ounce 


5 c lb. rate 


4c lb. rate 


3c lb. rate 


Weight 
Each 


3yi mills 


2yi mills 


\}i mills 


Piece 


per ounce. 


per ounce. 


per ounce. 


8|- 


.027 


.022 


.016 


l>^-2 


.006 


.005 


.003 


4K 


.014 


.011 


.008 


22 


.068 


.055 


.041 


50 


.156 


.125 


.093 


8| 


.027 


.021 


.016 


51 


.018 


.014 


.01 


H 


.009 


.007 


.005 


I'A 


.023 


.018 


.014 


3>^ 


.01 


.008 


.006 


.358 


.286 


.212 




.202 


.161 


.119 




.134 


.106 


.078 



Piece 
Price 

.01-02 
.03 
.06 
.15 

.03 yd 
.03 
.02 
.03 

j03 

.44 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 



DOMESTIC LAUNDRY 
Birmingham, Ala. 

I have read your article asking for opinions as to the advis- 
ability of laundryowners throughout the country undertaking 
to handle "finished family wash" on a certain definite basis 
outlined in the article entitled "Pound Laundry Service" in the 
December number. 

Your inquiry or series of inquiries is not easy to answer even 
if your subject is not new. I will attempt to answer it by asking 
and answering (as best I can) these questions: 

1. Is the laundry industry in bad situation? 

2. If so, can the laundryowner help the situation by any 
bavsic change rather than by careful, economical manage- 
ment, intense application and efficiency in detail? 

3. Is a pound price basis a fair price basis? 

4. Would the installation of a cheaper rate bring more 
business into the laundry? 

5. If so, would it be profitable? 

6. What shall we, then, conclude? 

In answer to No. 1, I would say that the laundry business is 
in bad situation. Our business is primarily one which prospers 
in "normal" times — times of peace. We have lost custom 
through the departure of patrons who have entered government 
service, we have lost custom by reason of the laxity of the public 
in matters of dress in these chaotic days, we have lost custom 
because of the necessity for economy in the average household 
and, finally, we have lost custom because clothing is not fashioned 
as it once was. We are going to lose more custom because of all 
four reasons specified. On the other hand we are confronted and 
have been confronted for a long time with increased costs in the 
various necessities in the operation of our business. This in- 
creased cost cannot be met in entirety by economy in the plant 
or by increase in the price we charge for our service. Finally, we, 
like all other industries, are facing a most serious labor problem 
which, like Banquo's ghost, will not down. 

2. Can the laundryowner help the situation by a basic 
change in his method of doing business? (The writer believes 
that there are some basic changes which can be made which will 
better conditions but these do not come within the scope of your 



50 Pound Laundry Service 

inquiry.) I would answer "No." The situation is one not 
caused by the laundryowner. As a whole we have been oper- 
ating successfully and profitably to ourselves as well as satis- 
factorily to the public. We must bide the time when "piping 
peace" will once more secure our business on the ground of 
prosperity. We must take what steps we can to permit our 
business to "live through" — that is, we must get good prices, 
watch our credits, do good work and give as good service as 
possible and operate as economically as we can. 

3. Is a pound price basis a fair price basis? Yes and No. 
Unquestionably it is the best basis for flat-work and "rough-dry." 
These two laundry service features take into consideration just 
washing and ironing the flat work and just washing, starching 
and drying the "rough-dry." It is quite apparent that a pound 
price for this service is a well balanced proposition. On the 
other hand when it comes to ironing or pressing wearing apparel it 
is just as apparent that weight has little, perhaps nothing, to do 
with the cost of the work. I cannot admit the fairness or 
efficacy of a pound price for ironing. 

4. Would the installation of a pound rate which is cheaper 
than the present rate bring more business to the laundry? By 
and large, I doubt it. We have no way of knowing except as 
experience has taught us generally. Experience as a whole has 
convinced me that raising or lowering a price affects the volume 
of business in that article practically not at all — ^and that a 
raise in price is sometimes followed by an increase in volume 
of pieces of the article raised. 

5. I do not think that this new business obtained (?) by a 
forty-six per cent cut in starch work prices would pay. Your 
laundry would immediately suffer a decrease in revenue on that 
work of this class that it is now getting at 100 per cent prices. 
If the volume did not result that cut would serve no purpose. If 
the volume did come, what with the labor problem as it is and is 
to be; what with the added overhead because of the necessity 
for new equipment for this purpose; what with the added cost 
because of the careful management of detail in getting the work 
in, through and out of this new department, the expense would 
nullify the profit. 

6. The conclusion is — "Why work around a circle?" A 
careful analysis of the chart accompanying "Pound Laundry 
Service" brings out one fact which is predominant over all others. 
It is this: the proposed basis of charge is nothing more than a 
reduction of 33 1/3 per cent on soft work and 46 per cent on 
starch work prices from that of our present list. If we wish 
to make this cut why not take our list and make just such a 
reduction and not attempt "camouflage" where it is quite 
unnecessary? 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 51 

Mr. Editor, it would be "all wrong." If war-time conditions 
carry the laundry industry into desuetude let us go down with 
colors flying, continuing to do our best and realizing that our 
ruin is one of the incidents of the great conflagration but let us 
not make a radical, almost unthinkable move that will "surely 
kill the laundry game." 

At least, that is my opinion. 

Percy W. B rower. 



LAUNDRYOWNERS NATIONAL ASSOCIATION 
LaSalle, lU. 

There is no question but there is a crying need for the 
development of some new business. While the pound plan of 
doing flat work as well as semi-finished family work, impresses 
me as the most logical way of doing this work, I am not fully 
converted to the theory of ironing the starched pieces on a pound 
rate basis. 

Furthermore, I believe the plan that will prove most popular 
with the housewife is the plan where nothing will be eliminated, 
or in other words, where there are no exceptions. When you 
tell a woman that you will do her entire family washing for so 
much a pound, and then tell her that you will not do her handker- 
chiefs, she is entitled to kick; and when you tell her that you will 
do her entire family washing, but that you will not do her shirt 
waists at the rate contemplated, she also has a right to kick. 
Therefore, it seems to me that the plan which will make the 
greatest hit with the housewives, is that plan which does not 
contemplate any exceptions whatsoever. 

The thing that the housewife wants to know is how much 
her washing is going to cost her. She is not particularly inter- 
ested in the method through which the laundryowner arrives 
at this bit of information, but she is interested in knowing. 

In your plan, as I understand it, we contemplate doing one 
part of the work at 7 cents a pound, and another part of it at 
13 cents a pound. Just how are you going to explain this 
System to the housewife, so she will be able to understand. 

The big argument in favor of flat work by the pound and 
semi-finished family work by the pound, is that it is easy to 
explain, but it seems to me that when you come to divide the 
family's weekly wash into classifications, that the housewife will 
not understand it. 

W. E. Fitch, General Manager. 



52 Pound Laundry Service 

MATTMILLER LAUNDRY 
Chicago, 111. 

You are quite right in asserting that an acute situation 
exists in the laundry industry and extreme measures are necessary 
to turn the tide and avert a crisis. 

For some months past I have given a great deal of time to 
the study of "Finished Family Washing" with a view to off- 
setting if possible, with new business, the decrease in the volume 
of bundle work and so far have worked out a plan which I believe 
is fundamentally correct in its primary details, at least. 

In the first ]3lace I have decided that there are two principal 
factors which govern the cost of producing the F. F. W. product. 
These are the weight of the flat work and the time consumed in 
ironing the wearing apparel. I, therefore, found it necessary to 
handle each washing separately in order that I might be able to 
turn the complete bundle of wearing apparel over to a team of 
two operators, whose equipment consists of two ironing boards 
and one press. By keeping an accurate record of the time put in 
ironing the wearing apparel for each bundle and knowing the 
weight of the flat work, we have no difficulty in arriving at our 
cost on each washing which is the basis for our selling price. 

My only criticism of the plan proposed in the Starchroom 
is that it is impossible to set a selling price on the wearing 
apparel By The Pound because the cost is not in proportion to 
the weight as is the case in flat work. Also, I object to the re- 
strictions put on waists, etc. In answer to other questions 
would say that the method proposed for charging might be 
inadequate in some cases and unobtainable in others owing to 
the fact that your basis is not correct. 

I am deeply interested in this subject and extend you a most 
cordial invitation to visit me the next time you are in Chicago 
or possibly if you think the matter sufficiently important, 
arrangements could be made so that I could run down to Cincin- 
nati and attend a conference with some men who are as much 
interested as I am. 

George Mattmiller, Jr. 



TOLMAN LAUNDRY 
Washington, D. G. 

I have carefully read the article in the December "Starch- 
room." I think it is very good, and that you are on the right 
track. In way of criticism, I would ask the following questions: 

How would a laundry keep track of a customer who would 
want rough-dry one week and the next week wanted their 
body clothes starched and ironed? 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 53 

Would the body clothes be wrapped separately from the 
flatwork when the flatwork was ironed? 

Would the price appear on the list of rough-dry, and then 
another price on the list for body clothes? 

I find one total on one list meets the public's approval. 
We are charging 8 cents for rough-dry. I think the public would 
be more satisfied with the pound rate. Also the hotels. 

Would you itemize the body clothes that are to be rough- 
dried on the list? Would you itemize on the list the goods that 
are to be ironed? 

In charging family work, I find that the women complain of 
the detailed price list. For instance, we charge 15 cents for a 
certain article, and 12 cents for another article. The housewife 
would think the 12 cent article required more ironing and more 
detailed attention than the 15 cent article and they would 
criticise the price. Whereas if it was charged as a bulk they 
would not criticise this detail. 

* * * F. W. Mackenzie. 

WALLACH LAUNDRY 
New York City. 

After having gone very carefully over your article which 
appeared in the December Starchroom, I have come to the 
conclusion that the proper handling of starch work connected 
with the Pound Work Department of a steam laundry, is becom- 
ing increasingly important. The basis of cost on which it is 
being done, or has been done by others, is really the point of the 
entire matter. 

We are of the opinion here that the only possible and 
feasible manner in which starch work can be ironed under the 
finished family work plan of pound work, is by an additional 
charge per pound, as you suggest; to cover costs in handling we 
are now proceeding to find out the most feasible manner. Our 
opinion is that this work must be paid for the same as it is 
received, namely: by the pound. What that price shall be is as 
yet uncertain in our mind, but our position will be as follows: 

We will take the entire rough-dry out of a bundle of pound 
work and have it completely ironed by machine by one operator, 
everything it contains big and small, and will hold it together 
through the entire operation of ironing as a unit. We will weigh 
these goods to the operator and will pay the operator on the basis 
of so much per pound for everything. 

We believe that this is the only way in which finished family 
work from the pound department should be handled. It will 
give a definite cost per pound completely through the department. 
Inasmuch as there are many large pieces which will weigh con- 
siderably, an average price can perhaps be obtained for the 
operator and a basis of the proper charge to the customer can be 



54 Pound Laundry Service 

worked out. We do not know whether twenty cents per pound 
is the right price, it may be enough, and it may not . Before 
very long we will have definite figures which we shall be glad to 
let you have if you wish them. 

We are much interested in this matter. It is one of the 
great necessities due to present conditions tTiroughout the 
country, and we must meet it. 

Jos. G. Wallach. 

* * * 

ROYAL LAUNDRY 
Richmond, Va. 

With careful interest I have read the article on "Pound 
Laundry Service," and it looks unusually good and has a big 
and brilliant future. 

If we had more floor space, we would go into it, as we 
realize the possibilities. 

To the party or parties who prepared the presentation of 
the proposition, unlimited praise should be given. 

The marking or listing, assorting and ironing, requires 
extended study, as cost and delivery service enters primarily into 
its success. 

We are awaiting, keenly, further suggestions, and will scan 
subsequent issues of the "Starchroom" which, critically by the 
way, has shown a most energetic and initiative spirit. 

To the continued success of the "Starchroom" and 
S. Bacharach, we will not drink, as Virginia is now bone-dry, but 
we wish to ally ourselves with other laundrymen, in extending 
to them a most Happy and Prosperous New Year. 

M. B. Florsheim. 

* * * 

STANLEY LAUNDRY SUPPLY CO. 
New York City. 

The writer has been reading your article in the December 
issue of the Starchroom on "Pound Laundry Service," and 
wishes to express himself as heartily in favor of a campaign along 
these lines to bring more volume of business into the Laundry or 
at least to prevent a further decrease in volume. 

The writer always has believed that when the laundryowner 
wakes up to the tremendous volume of business that is in his 
community that is unscratched, there will be a determined 
effort made to get it, and the only way that it can be got is along 
the lines of "finished family work." 

It will be necessary, in my opinion, for a "direct to the 
family" system of advertising along educational lines, to be made 
in each community. It is only in a few cities or at least sections 
of the country, that any real amount of this work is being done. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 55 

Here and there we find cases where a very big success has 
been made in pound work, but there are whole sections of the 
country where practically nothing has been done by the trade 
towards educating the housewife up to the point where she can 
see economy in sending everything in the house to the laundry. 

It was thought a few years ago when the wet wash project 
started that this would be a step towards bringing all of the 
family laundry work into the laundry, and that the wet wash 
business would gradually work itself into a finished proposition, 
but in very few, if any cases, has this resulted. 

Here and there a plant went to the trouble of putting in 
tumblers and flat-work ironers, and in many cases considerably 
improving their business, but either through (as you say) a fear 
of getting into trouble through too much detail or lack of know- 
ledge as to a fair method of pricing the work, they got no further. 

If through your journal or through National or Local 
organization work, the general laundryowner can be made to see 
the wisdom of this plan of yours, it will result in great universal 
good, and will benefit not only the laundrymen but the general 
public as well. 

Would it be too far fetched a suggestion if you were to get up 
a set of circular letters explaining to the housewife the whole 
proposition for she will see its advantage to her, and sell these 
to the laundryowner in complete sets for them to distribute to 
their customers, also for publication in their local papers? In 
this way they would secure all data for a good advertising cam- 
paign for a trifling sum. 

It seems to me that the laundryowner, in order to get this 
idea properly to the public, should be willing to spend some 
money in advertising. 

Of course in cities where they have got a good local organi- 
zation with a treasury fund that amounts to anything, the 
organization could buy the data, pay for the general publicity, 
and distribute to its members copies of the material for circulars 
or letters to be sent by mail or postage to their own clientile. 

I realize of course that before any of this work can be done, 
a general list must be got up and accepted (with of course the 
necessary corrections to suit local conditions) by the committee 
of laundryowners selected for the purpose. 

In my opinion a campaign of this kind should not be made 
with merely the idea of just getting a few of the leading laundries- 
in the different sections to take it up, but should be done 
with the idea of getting practically the whole fraternity to 
wake up to the possibilities that there are in the laundry business, 
thus benefiting the whole trade. 

Another thing that should be brought to the attention of 
the comparatively small laundryowner is that to go out and 
get this business does not require a great outlay of capital for 



56 Pound Laundry Service 

new equipment. The business itself as it comes, will easily pay 
for the added equipment needed. 

In fact, it is only through some such plan as this that what 
we term an average laundry, can hope to exist in the near future. 

F. W. Johnson, General Manager. 



HILLER LAUNDRY 
East Orange, N. J. 

Your article inviting criticism of the "Pound Laundry 
Service" plan as set forth in your issue of December 15, has 
been read. 

To you and to the Model Laundry Co., of Cincinnati must 
be given great credit for the painstaking and exhaustive manner 
in which you have placed before the laundryowners, data by 
which to reckon the possibilities of "Pound Service" as applied 
to "Finished Family Work." 

Much to my regret I cannot agree with the conclusions you 
reach as to the profit in the proposed plan; nor am I quite sure 
that there is a demand for the service outlined. 

May I take up the latter objection first? A sentence in your 
article as the text — you say: 

"An exhaustive review of fashion plates and the personal 
report of several women investigators prove that fancy wear has 
gone out of style and that plain and EASILY IRONED pieces 
largely predominate." 

It is my belief that wearing apparel — or much of it — dried 
in the present day efficient tumblers, is not ironed by the cus- 
tomer but is used as returned "rough-dried," surely a misnomer 
for the very satisfactory condition in which we take the flannel 
underwear and unstarched garments from the machines. 

The few starched clothes that women wear now-a-days 
ARE EASILY IRONED and with the modern electric or gas 
irons can be finished when convenient. About the most difficult 
starched piece to be ironed is the shirt waist and that you propose 
to return "rough-dried." 

So I am strongly of the opinion that in these days of high 
living cost, compelling economies in all directions, a woman will 
not pay 13 cents a pound extra for the difference between 
ironing and tumbling of the "soft work" and I think the majority 
of them will prefer to save the extra 13 cents a pound by ironing 
their own starched pieces. 

Of course, communities differ but I am sure that my con- 
clusions are correct regarding Newark, N. J., a very busy 
industrial city of 500,000 people. 

I don't feel quite so confident of myself when expressing an 
opinion as to the profit in the "20 cents per pound" for ironing. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 57 

You know that while we do a comfortable amount of shirts, 
collars and finished work, I have specialized in "rough-dry" for 
the last twelve years and am not very familiar with the possi- 
bilities of the steam presses although we have them, of course. 
Another text from your article: 

"It must be conceded that this (ironing of the starched 
work) is the whole problem and around the character of the 
work revolves the feasibility or the undesirability of the propo- 
sition on the 20 cent basis." 

I have made an analysis of my own from your figures which 
compels me to arrive at a different conclusion as regards the 
profit in ironing the starched work at 13 cents extra per pound — 
thusly: 

For 332 lbs. of starched work at 13 cents you receive $43 . 16 
Deduct driver's commission of 10 per cent 4.32 

Additional income from starched work $38 . 84 



Pieces of starched work 1049 

Deduct waists not ironed 178 

Starched Pieces to be ironed 871 



You will receive an average of 4 46/100 cents each for these 
pieces from which you must pay for labor of ironing, heating 
machines, padding machines, extra sorting cost, extra sorting 
space, more careful wrapping and it will take more space, 
I think than "rough-dry" in the delivery vehicle. 

And then find a reasonable profit! ! 

Of the 871 starched pieces to be ironed there are 694 of what 
I call the larger pieces of apparel as follows: 

Aprons 198 

Combinations 11 

Chemise 20 

Corset Covers 51 

Drawers 51 

Child's Dresses 87 

Dresses 53 

Dressing Sacques 10 

Night Dresses 31 

Pants 11 

Skirts 77 

Work Shirts 94 

694 



58 Pound Laundry Service 

I can't give you figures as to the cost of ironing the above 
with 177 pieces not enumerated; but if anybody were to ask me 
to do the work with all its expenses for $38.84 and find a profit — 

Oh! Boy. 

Can we make up on the "soft pieces" ironed at 13 cents a 
pound extra? Possibly, I'm not sure. The proposition follows: 

481 lbs. of "soft work" at 13 cents $62.53 

Deduct driver's commission 6.25 

Income from "soft work" $56.28 



Pieces of "soft work" 1634 

Deduct waists not ironed 31 

Soft pieces to be ironed 1603 



1603 pieces for $56.28 gives you 3 51/100 cents average. 
Among the pieces are : 

Combinations 165 

Night Shirts 36 

Night Dresses 43 

Pajamas 37 

Pants 13 

Skirts 61 

Under waists 100 

Under shirts 112 

Under drawers Ill 

Work Shirts 101 



779 



Of course, the 682 socks and stockings for which you will 
receive 7 cents a pair for ironing will help out but I have doubts 
— serious doubts as to the profit you figure. 

Dear Mr. Editor, have the possibilities of "family rough 
dry" been exhausted so soon that we must cry for other fields? 

You say that a serious condition confronts the laundry- 
owners throughout the United States — that volume is steadily 
diminishing, production costs are increasing and an undoubted 
emergency exists. I have heard this from salesmen and from 
competitors but will I be accused of braggadocio if I tell you that 
conditions are just opposite in the plant of the Hillier Rough Dry 
Laundry Company? 

Without any effort in the canvassing or advertising line, 
we are doing "rough dry" washing for between 400 and 500 
more weekly customers than we did last year — our best year up 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 59 

to now — we are getting 7 cents a pound — 1 cent extra for all 
handkerchiefs and 2 cents extra for the limited number of pieces 
we are asked to starch. Our bundles average close to 15 9/10 
lbs. as in Cincinnati. We get cash upon delivery. 

I mention all this, not in a bragging spirit for, "pride 
Cometh before a fall" but as an encouragement to others. 

Why are we busier than ever before? I think I know — 
but that's another story. 

* * * John H. Hart. 

McEWEN'S LAUNDRY 
Nashville, Tenn. 

I read with much interest your article in the December 
Starchroom on "Pound Laundry Service." 

Heretofore the price charged for this service has been guess 
work; in fact, the price charged on the regular laundry list, is 
more a habit than in accordance with what the service costs. 
Yours is a scientific way of looking at it, and it is fairer to the 
customer, and also to the laundryowner. I find in most laun- 
dries that some customers are paying too much for their pound 
work, and others too little. It is too easy now for the customer 
to manipulate the weeks washing in their own favor, and some- 
times the laundries do the same thing for their gain, which is 
hardly fair to the customer. 

Your system, after it is tried, will rot only give the proprietor 
a greater profit, but will be more satisfactory to the parties 
sending in the work. After the first of the year we hope to try 
it in our plant. 

* * * O. W. Staley. 

PILGRIM LAUNDRY 
Philadelphia, Pa. 

Have carefully studied the article in the December number 
and the more I think of it the more favorable some such proposi- 
tion appears. I have been unable yet to do any experimenting 
as to cost and thus cannot say with any degree of accuracy how 
the prices you have mentioned would pan out. It does appear, 
however, that in order to make a year around uniformly satis- 
factory proposition a different price should be charged for the 
finishing of rough dry, from June to October, than what might 
be equitable from October to June, owing to the fact that the 
materials worn during the cooler months would be considerable 
heavier in weight than what might be employed in the warmer 
season. 

This is just a thought since you ask for opinions. You 
cover the matter so thoroughly and your analysis is so good 
that I am very much impressed with the possibility of the plan. 
As you stated, there are certain charges or costs that are already 



60 Pound Laundry Service 

taken care of whether the work is sent home rough dried or 
some additional revenue is obtained by completely finishing the 
job. Your wash-room supplies, which are at present a very heavy 
item of expense would be no more if this rough dry work was 
finished complete. It would appear to me that, if necessary, 
more expense in the way of labor and investment on equipments 
could be employed in the pressing or finishing of this rough dry 
work, and still leave a reasonable margin of profit and at the 
same time make a price to the customer which would be at- 
tractive. 

I am going into the cost of finishing soft and starched work 
to see if we are able t6 arrive at a conclusion which might cor- 
respond, or nearly so, with the figures that you have so kindly 
worked out. Would it not be well and probably a profitable 
venture for certain men in different parts of the country to go 
over this matter and determine what they could do, and then, 
perhaps, meet at some point convenient for all and compare 
notes on their findings? 

One thing we must take into consideration just now, and 
that is ways and means to permit our labor to earn salaries that 
will attract able, intelligent and efficient operators. 

I wish personally to thank you for your efforts in the direc- 
tion of proposing something new, and to my mind tangible in the 
way of increased revenue from each customer, at the same time 
giving the patrons of the laundries a long time desired possi- 
bility. 

L. O. Miller. 



CAROLYN LAUNDRY 
New York City. 

We have examined your article on Pound Laundry Service 
and inasmuch as you particularly request that we let you have 
whatever information we have before January 5th, we are giving 
it to you herewith, rather incomplete and not at all decisive. 

We kept 100 bundles of our finished family work entirely 
separate and here is the information: 

These 100 bundles weighed 1620 pounds, of which 740 
pounds was flat work, the remaining 880 pounds being composed 
of work to be finished, both starched and soft, also socks, hand- 
kerchiefs, etc., and a number of shirts, for we include soft shirts 
in the finished family work, just as we also take them in the 
pound work. Just what percentage of this 880 pounds was soft 
and starched we are unable to say, for we did not go that far. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 61 

At your suggestion of 13c per pound, the extra income would 
have been $114.40, whereby at our system of charging, the 
extra income was $120.30. Our method of charging is based 
primarily upon the cost of operation which is easily attained, 
for we pay our operators on a piece work basis. 

The actual cost of ironing the soft work by machine was 
$4.18, machine ironed starched work $12.42 and the hand work 
$10.44. The costs for the socks and handkerchiefs was $3.10 
and the cost of folding the work was $12.00, the folding cost 
being extra, for our operators do not fold their own work. The 
cost of folding is to a certain extent approximated, for it took 
the entire time of one folder who gets a flat salary of $10.00 
per week and some time of another folder, whom we have ap- 
proximated at $2.00. The actual cost of boxing was $6.80, of 
assorting $6.00 and ironing the shirts $3.96. 

All of the above totals a primary cost of $58.90 to which 
we add the driver's commission of $12.03, making a total actual 
cost of $70.93. 

The above total does not include the cost of departmental 
super\dsion or other departmental costs in the way of steam, 
power, machine covering, floor space, etc., which for the time 
being will have to be approximated. Just what that approxi- 
mate cost would be is very difficult to arrive at. 

You are at perfect liberty to use this information as you 
see fit and to state any conclusion or opinion that you may 
deduce. 

In our opinion these cost figures are very close to those which 
you state in your article in The Starchroom. 

There can be no doubt that most of these costs can be 
shaded considerably in quantity production. 

In our opinion, this cost does not leave a sufficient margin, 
unless the producer is to do as you suggest, that is to say figure 
the finishing of the family work as a separate and distinct propo- 
sition and not to bear its proportionate share of all business 
costs, general overhead, etc. 

If the family work proposition is to be developed and not 
regarded as a separate proposition, it certainly would have to 
bear its proportionate share of all business costs. 

For instance: With the 100 bundles that we have here, 
it would be all right if we could regard the extra income separ- 
ately, but in our opinion, the proposition ceases to be 1620 
pounds at 7c per pound and 880 pounds at 13c, but becomes a 
separate proposition of 1620 pounds giving an income of $227.80, 
and this sum of $227.80 is to bear its proportionate share of all 
business expenses. 

We realize and appreciate that it figures the same with 
our method of charging, but you undoubtedly recollect that 



62 Pound Laundry Service 

we told you that in our opinion, we were not charging enough 
and today we are charging more than we ever did before, but 
still it is not enough. 

If the laundry industry is to do the family work and take 
it out of the house, the industry will have to do it at a price 
that will provide a profit and the public will have to be educated 
to pay the right charge for the service. 

In our establishment even at the list prices which prevailed 
before we went into the finished family proposition, the family 
ironing department was always the least profitable. 

The percentage of labor cost as compared with the income 
of the department was always higher than in other departments 
and the floor space occupied for the amount of income was 
larger than in both the shirt and collar departments, but not as 
great as in the fiat work ironing department. 

Of course, there can be no doubt that with thought and 
study, the cost of production in the family ironing department 
can be materially reduced, but we do not think it can be re- 
duced sufficiently even with great quantity production to allow 
the producer to put it out at the low price at which we are all 
trying to give this work to the public. 

We again suggest a conference. 

E. LiCHTENSTEiN and P. Mendelson. 



UNITED LAUNDRIES COMPANY 
Cambridge and Boston. 

The article in the December S'tArchroom has aroused my 
keen interest. Undoubtedly the near future will see exploited 
in serious fashion a finished list for families. 

In New England this has been done half-heartedly and with 
indifferent volume and profits, because straight starched and 
flat work were easier to handle and did not require a campaign 
of education. With the diminution of volume which now con- 
fronts us, our Bureau is studying the question and soon I 
hope may have some definite conclusions as to the best method 
of pricing. 

It is a pleasure to compliment you upon the progressiveness 
of your magazine. 

M. M. Johnson. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 63 

STAR PALACE LAUNDRY 
Rochester, N. Y. 

I have read your very interesting article and I am heartily 
in accord with the thought of it. We have been working on 
this plan for some few weeks and in fact we are just getting off 
to some kind of a start on it. The enclosed copies of letters 
which we have sent out at different times to a selected few of 
our customers and the instructions to our drivers show in con- 
crete form how we are presenting it to our trade. We are at- 
tempting to put this over as a sort of second or "Grade B" 
finished bundle. We are not ironing the socks or underwear, 
only folding it carefully after the tumbler and the majority 

of the starched work is ironed on press and finished 

when necessary by the same operator on the hand ironing board 
and then folded. We figure to pay to the operator for the ironing 
and folding complete of this work approximately five-eighths of 
the charge which we receive from the customer. You will see 
that we £ire pricing it somewhat cheaper than you are. It was 
our thought that if we could get this work started at a minimum 
cost, the price could later be advanced if necessary, and we 
could appeal to a greater percentage of people who do not want 
the very finest grade of a finished all ironed bundle. 

We figure to pay a definite piece rate to the operator ap- 
proximately according to the enclosed ironing labor schedule. 
You will find on this sheet a summary of seventeen bundles and 
it will give a general idea of what we are doing, or at least what 
we are trying to do, because this is just in the initial stage and I 
was very surprised to find that the subject matter of your article 
somewhat compared so closely to a scheme which we are trying. 
You will note that we are charging one cent additional for all 
handkerchiefs. That is our present plan in our Pound Washing 
Department and we believe it would be unwise and unnecessary 
to make any change from that. You will also note that we are 
accepting waists in this bundle and I believe that the bundle 
should be so priced as to be able to accept everything which a 
housewife desires to send in an all ironed bundle. We might add 
that the operator who ironed these trial bundles earned at these 
piece prices a rate of approximately $12.50 a week. This agreed 
favorably with her wages, working at a 20 per cent basis figured 
on our list prices. You will also note that we have made the 
stipulation that the flat work in these bundles shall weigh at 
least fifty per cent of the entire weight. We have done this, not 
because we feel that there will be a large percentage of bundles 
in which the wearing apparel will outweigh the flat pieces, but 



64 



Pound Laundry Service 



only to provide a way whereby we can eliminate a bundle where 
a customer is trying to send in a very large percentage of thin 
starched pieces to be ironed. 

Geo. B. Caudle. 













Ironing 


First 


*First 


Flat 


Rough 


Total 


Ironing Labor 


Veight 


Price 


Weight 


Weight 


Price 


Charge Cost 


11 


.73 


4 


7 


1.29 


.56 .12 


16 


1.11 


10 


6 


1.59 


.48 .20 


16 


.96 


11 


5 


1.36 


.40 .20 


11 


.67 


7 


4 


.99 


.32 .23 


14 


.84 


8 


6 


1.32 


.48 .17 


11 


.66 


5 


6 


1.14 


.48 .18 


8 


.48 


4 


4 


.80 


.32 .12 


13 


.78 


8 


5 


1.18 


.40 .14 


*20 


1.30 


15 


5 


1.70 


.40 .13 


12 


.72 


9 


3 


.96 


.24 .13 


19 


1.27 


12 


7 


1.83 


.56 .22 


18 


1.12 


12 


6 


1.60 


.48 .32 


7 


.44 


3 


4 


.76 


.32 .23 


10 


.76 


5 


5 


1.16 


.40 .13 


8 


.53 


5 


3 


.77 


.24 .05 


12 


.80 


5 


7 


1.36 


.56 .38 


14 


.84 


5 
128 


9 
92 


1.56 


.72 .37 


220 


14.01 


21.37 


7.36 3.32 


* Unusual. 


* 6 cts. pounc 


1 and 1 ct. for hdksfs. 



Based on the following ironing labor — piece prices. 



Soft Shirts 3c 

Undershirts yic 

Underdrawers yic 

Combinations ^c 

Socks (darned) Ic 

Stockings (darned) . . . . Ic 

Dresses 5c 

Skirts 4c 

Underskirts 3c 

Waists 4c 



Boy's Waists 3c 

Underwaists Ic 

Chemise Ic 

Drawers Ic 

Night Shirts Ic 

Night Dresses Ic 

Corset Covers Ic 

Aprons l>^c 

Pajamas l^c 

Rompers 3c 



The plan of Star-Palace Laundry to which Mr. Caudle 
refers in his comment: 

No. 1 

Dear Madam: 

We have gone a step further with your washing this week 
and we are returning it with the body clothes ironed. We are 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 65 

after a little information and we have taken this means of giving 
you a completely finished bundle this week at no additional 
charge to you, in order to have the benefit of your opinion as to 
what an extent there would be a demand among our trade for 
such a bundle. If this service is worth something to you we 
wish that you would talk it over with our representative when 
he calls next week and give him an idea as to what value you 
would place upon it. 

Yours very truly, 

Star-Palace Laundry. 

ROUTE MEN— ATTENTION ! 

The above letter is a copy of the letter sent out this week 
with the sample bundles which you have delivered to a selected 
few of your Pound Wash customers. It is somewhat self- 
explanatory, but in order to talk intelligently next week to the 
customer about this class of work we want you to know the 
following: This is an attempt to put before the housewife a 
bundle which is completely finished in a sort of "Grade B" 
all-ironed bundle. It is meant to compete with the washer- 
woman's ironing or the home ironing and while it is not quite 
so carefully ironed as our present All-ironed Bundle, we have 
the thought in mind that if such a bundle can be presented to 
the customer at a nominal charge over and above the Pound 
Washing price that it will be attractive. If we are given any 
encouragement regarding this bundle, the aim is to make an 
additional charge on the number of pounds of wearing apparel 
to be ironed and it will probably be necessary to require the 
bundle to have a number of pounds of flat work equal to the 
number of pounds of wearing apparel. The estimated charge 
per pound for this service is 8c. In other words on a 12 pound 
bundle of Pound Wash consisting of 6 pounds of Flat Work 
and 6 pounds of wearing apparel the charge would have been 
72c to have the flat pieces washed and ironed and the wearing 
apparel washed, starched and dried. The new additional 
charge will be 48c or 8c a pound for the 6 pounds of wearing 
apparel, making a total of $1.20. Of course, this is only a tenta- 
tive price and it may have to be readjusted. What we are after 
at present is to get an expression of opinion from the customer 
whom w^e approach as to what value they place on this type of 
a bundle and after we have their judgment we will try and give 
you the necessary information to enable you to secure these 
bundles if v/e decide to adopt it- 

Star- Palace Laundry. 



66 Pound Laundry Service 

No. 2. 
Dear Madam: 

Last week we took the liberty to return your family washing 
with the wearing apparel ironed and folded, and we are anxious 
to secure your opinion as to whether there is a demand among 
housewives generally for such a type of a finished bundle. 
This ironing is somewhat of a "Grade B" quality, it is not up 
to the standard of our All-ironed family washing list, but of 
course, the aim is to so price such a bundle that it will attract 
the majority. We believe that if the public is not too critical 
we can do the additional work necessary to accomplish this result 
for approximately an additional charge of 8c a pound for the 
wearing apparel. Most bundles would approximate half again 
as much as we charge for Pound Washing as we usually return 
it to you; and of course, we would expect a customer to send all 
classes of goods. 

We trust we may have the courtesy of a reply, giving us your 
opinion. Would you please either talk with our representative 
or write us about it? 

Thanking you for your attention, we are, 

Yours very truly. 

Star- Palace Laundry. 

No. 3. 
Dear Madam: 

On Nov. 20th, you indicated to us your approval of our 
completely finishing your washing on the plan which we out- 
lined to you at that time. We have since provided facilities for a 
limited amount of this class of ironing and we are finishing your 
bundle this week. If that grade of ironing has your approval 
for some few weeks we may at that time make some general 
announcement regarding it. The charge for this service as 
previously suggested will be 8c a pound additional for the 
body clothes and it will be necessary for the bundle to contain 
at least as many pounds of flat pieces as wearing apparel. For 
example, a bundle of Pound Washing weighing ten pounds, 
costs 7c a pound plus Ic each for handkerchiefs. On this "Grade 
B" completely ironed bundle in addition to this charge of 70c, 
if there are five pounds of wearing apparel the additional charge 
would be 40c and the complete bundle will consequently cost 
$L10, plus Ic each for handkerchiefs. 

Yours very truly, 

Star-Palace Laundry. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 67 

CROWN LAUNDRY 
Louisville, Ky. 

Refering to your article on "Pound Laundry Service" 
I want to express my thanks for the very interesting form sheet 
of the Model Laundry Co. 

I will not presume to criticise or comment on this in any way 
other than to say that it is very coincise and interesting to any 
one in the laundry business who cares about cost of production. 

I submit a sheet* containing some rough figures which I 
compiled several years ago, for the purpose of ascertaining 
whether or not there was any profit in doing laundry work at 
fifty cents a hundred, or a penny a piece. 

You will note that at that time we were charging only 5 
cents per pound for the family washing. You will see by com- 
parison that at 5 cents per pound we were getting 2 cents per 
piece. (We are novv charging 7 cents per pound in Louisville.) 

We are not making any effort to secure work on the lines 
of finished family washing. We much prefer the Rough Dry 
work at 7 cents per pound. Although I have no data to go by 
other than that of the Model Laundry, yet it appears to me that 
20 cents per pound for the finished work should produce a fair 
profit. I doubt if work would be obtainable in Louisville at 
that figure. 

As matters now stand here, it is almost impossible to secure 
help to turn out the work we have. 

*See page 76. W. A. Haas. 

ACME LAUNDRY, 
Fort Worth, Texas. 

Allow me to comment on the article appearing in your De- 
cember magazine entitled "Pound Laundry Service." 

The article is extremely interesting and should be studied- 
carefully by the entire fraternity. 

As to the application of the same in this plant, I fear the 
charges per pound are entirely too high. However, this is a 
matter that will require a great deal of research and study on 
the part of those engaged in the industry who have awakened to 
the realization that this line of business must be the foundation 
of the industry. 

An application of the 20c per pound for Finished Family Work 
would give us an increase of 39 per cent on the prices now charged 
by this plant, and I must be candid in stating that I do not be- 
lieve that the competition would permit that large a percentage 
of an advance, nor do I believe that it would bring us the volume 



68 Pound Laundry Service 

of business that is necessary to make the Finished Family 
Wash department the success that we know in the end it must be. 
This, I conclude, covers your inquiry as to what prices we 
are charging for Finished Family Wash. The bundles are re- 
ceived and handled in the Rough Dry Department on the 6>^c 
basis. If the customer desires the work finished, we charge 
4>^c for each starched piece and 2}4c for each unstarched piece, 
turning the bundle over to one operator, whom we pay 2^c 
per garment for the starched pieces and Ic for garment for the 
unstarched pieces. 

1 have before me, at this writing, 28 bundles averaging 8 
pounds. The wearing apparel was handled by eight operators 
in two hours for each operator. The average bundle consists of : 

2 ladies dresses 3 shirt waists 
2 middies 1 combination 
4 aprons 3 unions 

2 child's dresses 3 starched scarfs 

The productive labor cost us 40>^c, for which we received 
76c. 

These prices are bound to seem low to you, but our audits 
show that this department is making a very satisfactory margin 
of profit for the business. 

I am positive that the system advanced by you is the ideal 
one, but it will require a great deal of research and study for 
us to bring about a uniform charge for Finished Family Wash 
and the same will finally resort to the Cost Sheet of the power 
plant, showing an agreed percentage of profit for the work. 

I trust your article will create a great deal of interest 
among the fraternity and that it Vvdll be our good fortune to 
have another article from your pen in the next issue of your 
commendable trade paper. 

C. A. Wheeler. 



CRYSTAL LAUNDRY CO. 
Spokane, Wash. 

Referring to "Pound Laundry Service," which appeared 
in the December number of The Starchroom, I note that you 
did not give any definite costs in your compilation of figures. 

Is it necessary for Cincinnati laundries to make a charge 
of seven cents (7c) a pound for flat work and twenty cents (20c) 
for finished wearing apparel to realize a profit? Do they hope 
to build and retain a Finished Family Work business at that 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 69 

price? Can the progressive laundryowner of the future afford 
to operate with a 100 per cent unnecessary investment and force 
the public to pay the freight or the overhead? Did it ever occur 
to you that a very large percentage of our laundries are doing 
that today? 

These are some of the questions which present themselves 
during the analysis of your Family Work treatise. 

We are not at the present time doing any of this work. 
Our local laundries did not take kindly to it and in order to 
hold the association together and accomplish some results 
along other lines which we considered vital to the industry we 
discontinued our finished family work. Not without the 
feeling, however, that we were losing one of our most profitable 
classes of work and we expect to be able, in the near future, 
to again take it up. 

Figures compiled by us at different periods during the two 
years we handled this work showed a very substantial profit at 
a price which did not exceed thirteen cents (13c) per pound or 
73c per dozen pieces for wearing apparel and for flat work 5^c 
per pound, or 24c per dozen pieces, making an average rate for 
the bundle of about 9c per pound or 45c per dozen pieces. We 
did the work at accompanying list price but did not show prices 
on list we sent home; we simply told the customer about what 
the work would average per pound or dozen, then figured it at 
list price with very sati^actory results. I also submit a test 
cost report of 100 bundles. 

Our productive overhead has always been extremely low 
compared to other laundries with which we have made com- 
parisons. This is due to the fact that necessity made our original 
investment modest, since when we have always tried to apply 
the principle of simplicity in any changes or improvements 
made. My observations lead me to believe that in the majority 
of cases there had been too much time and money spent in 
preparation of new departments and systems as well as ex- 
pensive equipment for the handling of Finished Family Work. 
There is not an article of apparel in the family use but that can 
be handled and has been handled in our regular departments. 
When we create new departments and systems we create new 
costs. I believe that the listing and marking and the proper 
distribution of the finer and delicate pieces to the proper de- 
partments for laundering should be specialized and that the 
sorting, bundling or packing and delivering should be done with 
the utmost care, but I have never been convinced that a separate 
department and separate equipment is essential to good quality 
or service and I do know that an overburden is unnecessary 
building and equipment charges is a material handicap. 

The time is here when we must dispense with all unnecessary 
expense entering into production. Labor is high, materials 



70 Pound Laundry Service 

are high and a heavy overhead makes it doubly hard for us to 
compete with domestic sources. New equipment does not mean 
everything. The individual and not the machine is the im- 
portant factor in production and the big element in competitive 
productive costs is a satisfied organization. Efficiency figures 
do not mean very much unless they extend over yearly periods. 
We make a vigorous effort to keep old help. At our annual 
bonus distribution at Christmas the records showed 90 per cent 
of the employees in the service one year and over 50 per cent 
five years and over. 

We also operate machines that some consider obsolete, 
but we believe it pays. We have one battery of four body 
ironers and the junior operator in service on that battery has 
been with us five years. 

Now if A can do as much work in a given time on a body 
ironer that has been practically charged off as B can on a pair 
of presses that cost $500.00, it is going to take B a long time 
to get on a competitive base with A. Although this line of 
reasoning may not always be sound we find that in the majority 
of cases it pays and pays big with us. 

Your prices seem extremely high to me and I assume that 
it's in your overhead. Would be glad to hear any criticisms 
on our cost sheet. Will admit that conditions are different 
today. This exhibit was taken two years ago, but 10 per cent 
increase would cover the old cost. 

Frank T. McCollough. 

CRYSTAL LAUNDRY COMPANY 

Finished Family Price List. 

Handkerchiefs 1>^ Night Shirts 10 

Drawers 5 Ties 2 

Undershirts 5 Dresses 15 up 

Hose and Socks 3 Skirts 10 up 

Ladies' Vests 3 Chemise 10 

Pants 10 Ladies' Drawers 10 

Union Suits 10 Waists 15 

Bath Rugs 5 Waists, Boys' 8 

Child's Underwear 3 Aprons 5 

Blankets, Double Wool 50 Corset Covers 5 

Blankets, Single Wool 25 Night Dresses 10 

Quilts 25 Combination Suits 10 

Shirts, not starched 10 Child's Pieces str 5 up 

Pajamas 10 

Flat. 

Napkins 1}4 Table Covers 5 

Towels 1)4 Spreads 10 

Towels, Bath 2 Blankets, Single Cotton 10 

Rags 1)4 Blankets, Double Cotton 20 

Sheets 3 Bar Aprons 3 

Slips 2 Doilies 5 up 

Rollers 3 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 71 

These bundles weighed 1446 lbs., or 14.5 lbs. per bundle, 
and consisted of 3566 pieces. 

Test Cost of 100 bundles of Finished Family Work: 

No. 1 

Handkerchiefs 424 

Drawers 42 

Undershirts 36 

Hose— Socks 128 

Ladies' Vests 21 

Union Suits 73 

Bath Rugs 14 

Child's Underwear 42 

Wool Blankets 4 

No. 2 

Shirts 35 

Night Shirts 32 

Ties 36 

Dresses 41 

Skirts 43 

Chemise 16 

Drawers, Muslin 23 

Waists 45 

Waists, Boys' 21 

Aprons 114 

Corset Covers 30 

Night Dresses 61 

Combination Suits 16 

Child's Pieces 164 

Pajamas 9 

Collars, Soft 7 

Caps 6 

No. 3 

Napkins 241 

Towels 558 

Towels, Bath 161 

Rags 440 

Sheets 253 

Slips 264 

Rollers 13 

Table Covers 95 

Spreads 16 

Bar Aprons 8 

Doilies 30 

Pads 4 

Sales price for this work was $129.55 or $1.29>2 per bundle. 
The average rate per lb. was 9c and the average rate per dozen 
pieces, 43.6c. This work is segregated into three classes as 
per above, Class 1 consisting of all flannels, quilts, blankets, 
etc., socks and handkerchiefs; Class 2, all wearing apparel, 
which is either ironed on machines or by hand; Class 3 is flat 
work. Classes 1 and 2 weighed 707 lbs. and consisted of 1483 
pieces at sales price of $90.09, an average of 12^c per lb. and 



72 Pound Laundry Service 

73c per dozen pieces. Class 3 weighed 739 lbs. and consisted 
of 2083 pieces, sales price of $39,46, an average of 5.3c per lb. 
and 23c per dozen pieces. 

Our productive labor in marking and sorting on all classes, 
is figured on the piece base, which is 32c per 100 pounds. On 
washing and extracting, Classes 1 and 2 are based on loads 
washed — all machines are practically the same size — and on 
Class 3, productive labor and supplies are figured on the pound 
base. Classes 1 and 2 cost us 12c per load labor and 8c per 
load supplies — Class 3 costs 13c per cwt. labor and 9c per cwt. 
supplies. 

Starching on Class 2 is figured on an hourly base, 25c per 
hour with an added allowance for lost time. Drying and finish- 
ing on Class 1, same as starching. Ironing Class 2, both machine 
and hand is based on following list, plus 10 per cent of productive 
labor for forewoman: 

Hand Machine 

Dresses 7c 3yic 

Saques 3c 1 yic 

Skirts 6c 3c 

Skirts, Duck 10c 5c 

Chemise 3c 1 }4c 

Waists 6c 3c 

Waists, Boys' 3c l^^c 

Corset Covers 2c Ic 

Drawers 3c 1 >^c 

Combination Suits 5c 2Kc 

Night Dresses 3c 1 Kc 

Night Dresses, Fancy 5c 2>^c 

Child's Pieces, starched 3c l^c 

Child's Pieces, not starched Ic Kc 

Aprons Ic }4c 

Aprons, Bib 2c Ic 

Shirts 2c Ic 

Shirts, Wool 3c l^c 

Night Shirts 2c Ic 

Pajamas 4c 2c 

Ties, Belts, Ribbons Ic He 

Coats, long 5c 2Kc 

Coats, short 3c iKc 

Vests 5c 2>^c 

Caps Ic He 

Pants 5c 2Kc 

Jackets 3c 1 He 

Sash Curtains, small Ic He 

Sash Curtains, large 2c Ic 

Lace Curtains, Large 5c 2>^c 

Drawers, linen Ic He 

Undershirts 1 c 

Ironing flat work or Class 3 is figured on towel base, which 
costs $0,097 per 100 towels. 

In our Costkeeping system, we have three general classes 
of expense as adopted by the Laundryowners National Associa- 
tion, as follows: 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 73 



A — Marking and Sorting 

B — Washing 

C — Starching 

D — Flat Work Ironing 

E — Wearing Apparel Ironing 



17c per bundle. 



LAUNDERING EXPENSE 

Productive Labor 
Supplies 
Overhead — 

1 — Water, Light and Energy 

2 — Rent and Building Depreciation 

3 — Liability Insurance, Fire 

Insurance and Taxes. 
4 — Repairs to Equipment and 

Equipment Depreciation 

COLLECTION AND DELIVERY EXPENSES 

Drivers' Wages and Commission 

Agents' Commission 

Delivery Equipment, Repair and 

Depreciation 
Barn Expense, etc. 

GENERAL EXPENSES 

Executive Salaries ] 

Clerks' Salaries I 

cSims^''^^"^^ ^90% of Collection and Delivery 

Bad Debts j 

Advertising, Etc. J 

We note, however, that our overhead per cent to productive 
labor is much smaller than the exhibits shown at the Congress 
held at Sherman Hotel, Chicago, in April. Total overhead 
per cent to productive labor is 31.5 — A is 6.6 per cent — B is 86 
per cent — C is 59 per cent — D is 30.5 per cent — and E is 19 
per cent. 

Below is shown table of cost covering our finished family 
work for week ending July 3, 1915: 

LAUNDERING EXPENSE 

Class 1 — Labor Supplies Overhead Total Total 

Marking and Sorting $2.51 

Washing and Extracting 1.32 

Ironing 1.38 



Class 2— 

Marking and Sorting $2 . 24 

Washing and Extracting 2.16 

Starching and Drying 1 . 25 

Ironing 26.87 



Supplies 


Overhead 


Total 


$0.50 


$0.17 


$3.18 


.88 


1.14 


3.34 


.00 


.26 
$0.15 


1.64 


$0.80 


$3.19 


1.44 


1.86 


5.46 


.50 


.74 


2.49 


.00 


5.11 


31.98 



Class 3 

Marking and Sorting $6.67 $0.50 $0.44 $7.61 

Washing and Extracting 95 .67 .83 2.44 

Ironing 4.33 .00 1.32 5.65 



$8.16 



$43.12 



15.70 



$66.98 

Collection and Delivery Expense — 100 bundles at 17c 17.00 

General Expense — 90% of Collection and Delivery 15 . 30 

Total Cost $99.28 

Sales Price 129.55 



Profit $30.27 

Percentage of Profit on Finished Family Wash List Price 23.36% 



74 Pound Laundry Service 

TROY LAUNDRY COMPANY, 
Portland, Oregon. 

I agree with you that flat work can be handled on the 
pound basis, but am not prepared to say that 7c per pound is the 
correct figure. Under the present piece price system when sheets 
are being handled for 4 and 5c each, it is very hard to convince 
the customer th'at they should pay 8 or 10c for the same service 
in pound work and results in the heavier pieces of flat work 
being held out and sent in the finished work bundle. 

It seems strange that after all the effort which has been put 
forth in finding out the cost of the different articles contained 
in flat and finished work, that we cannot agree upon a standard 
price per piece. 

It is only too true that many of our plants are operating at 
a loss in the flat work department and carrying the burden of 
this loss in our finished work department; nor can I understand 
why it is possible for us to handle hotel, restaurant^ and bulk 
business at the low price at which it is being handled, and place 
the burden on the family work. There should be a reasonable 
difference between bulk work and family flat as there is a differ- 
ence in the cost of handling in favor of bulk work, but not the 
difference of 40, 50 or 100 per cent as is noticeable in many of 
the prices charged for this class of work. 

Regarding the price of 13c per pound for finishing the wearing 
apparel in the rough dry, I do not believe that this system will 
prove to be a satisfactory solution of our troubles. It is im- 
possible to establish an iron-clad rule which v/ill prevent our 
customers from sending all, or any part of their laundry work 
in rough dry, and when you undertake to limit them to certain 
pieces you fail to accomplish the purpose for which this class of 
work was originally intended, that of securing the entire family 
work. 

My idea is to handle finished work on a piece price system 
based on the actual cost of production; to this must be added a 
reasonable profit. The price should be made as low as possible 
to be consistent with good business principles and so that it 
will be attractive to the customer. Our present system of 
estimating our profit on a certain volume of business is not 
sound, as a careful analysis will show that many of the pieces 
handled in this volume were handled at a loss, while others show 
an unreasonble profit. This results in the higher pticed and 
profitable articles being withdrawn or their use discontinued on 
account of the high cost. 

Many of the prices charged for the different articles on 
our price list are open for just criticism. They are not founded 
on the cost of service but have been advanced from time to 
time to meet the increased cost of production, regardless of 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 75 

whether these different articles were being handled at a profit 
or not. 

I feel that every effort should be made to work out a piece 
price system, whereby every article sent to the laundry would 
be charged for on the basis of the actual cost of handling the 
same. If it were possible to work out a price along these lines 
I feel that it would prove to be much more satisfactory than 
the present system of piece work for one class of work, and 
pound rate for the same class of work under another name. 

John Tait. 

* * * 

KELSO LAUNDRY CO. 
Rochester, N. Y. 

I have traveled a good many miles wherever I heard of a 
laundry handling Finished Family Work, but have yet to find 
a laundry that I would care to pattern after in this respect. 
Every place I have visited they are "trying it out" or have just 
changed the price, but in traveling from city to city I have be- 
come thoroughly convinced that the coming idea, or probably 
not the coming, but the idea today, is to follow the system of 
feeding everything through the flat work ironer and give the 
customer the pressed article, and advertise that we are not 
giving them a first-class ironed job except on sheets or all flat 
work, and a fairly good job on underwear and all work of that 
description, but when it comes to shirt-waists, skirts, dresses 
and aprons, have it thoroughly understood that they will be 
pressed flat and dried. I have studied the matter sufficiently 
so that we have just installed an ironer with the 120" drum, 
and hope to start in with this class of work in about a week's 
time. I visited a laundry in Syracuse recently, which up to 
two years ago was doing nothing but wet wash, and now they 
are not doing any wet wash, but are handling about 600 washes a 
week — all ironed, or all fed through the flat work ironer. Every- 
thing goes C. O. D. and no bundles less than 75c — 7c per pound 
for all the work. I am satisfied as far as taking all of the work 
out of the house is concerned, that a great many customers who 
would feel that they could afford to send the work to have it all 
ironed, feel that it is costing them double, as the people who 
send the work out, have women come to their house and work 
about one-half day on ironing, and the other half on scrubbing 
or cleaning, and if they send all their work to the laundry to be 
completed, then they are compelled to hire a woman for an 
entire day, and this they do not want, and the work that is 
fed through the machine is all dried, and it is only a question 
of dampening some of the pieces over and putting them in a 
presentable condition, and at the same time give the woman the 
entire washing at 6c or 7c per pound. 



76 



Pound Laundry Service 



We hope to charge 6c a pound with a minimum bundle of 
12 pounds. I think that in three months from now I can show 
you about 300 washes a week. This will naturally cut down the 
number of wet washes, which are now running about 1100 
washes per week. 

I wish that I could give you more encouragement on the 
all-finished idea, but cannot at the present time. 

J. E. Kelso. 



Exhibit of Pieces Contained in 1 00 Bundles' 

Spring Season, March 1915 



IN the table submitted by Mr. W. A. Haas, of Louisville, Ky., 
the articles are classified in each of the 100 bundles but as 
the variance from the table in our December number is not 
great, these itemized contents are not present. 

The 100 bundles weighed 1814 pounds, divided into 1142 
flat and 672 rough-dry. This is a very different ratio from the 
Model exhibit which shows in 1590 pounds, 777 flat and 813 
rough-dry. Mr. Haas sought to ascertain the price per piece 
in comparison with the price of 5 cents the pound. This calcu- 
lation shows 1814 pounds at 5 cents selling for $90.70 or a 2-cent 
price per piece on 4598 pieces selling for $91.96. The exhibit 
in our judgment, proves that in 1915, before supply prices 
soared, the 5-cent pound price was a fallacy. (Editor.) 

SUMMARY. 



LIST 


Total 

Flat 

Pieces 


Total 

Soft 

Pieces 


Total 
Starch 
Pieces 


Total 
Pieces 


Bundle 
No. 


Total 
Pounds 


Aprons 










1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 


30 


Bags, Pound 










20 


Bath Mat 










38 


Bed Tick 










35 


Bibs 










10 


Blankets, Cotton. . 


2 






2 


18 


Bolster Slips 






10 


Comfort 










14 


Covers 










19 


Doilies 










11 


Draperies 










19 


Handkerchiefs 


705 






705 


10 


Silk 






47 













*See Page 67. 



Comment and Criticism from Laundryowners 



77 



LIST 


Total 

Flat 

Pieces 


Total 

Soft 

Pieces 


Total 
Starch 
Pieces 


Total 
Pieces 


Bundle 

No. 


Total 
Pounds 


Napkins 


617 






617 


14 

15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 


11 


Pads 






34 


Pillow Slips 


349 






349 


11 


Quilts 






18 


Rugs 










22 


Rags 










19 


Scarfs . . 


18 
290 

56 
134 






18 

290 

56 

134 


18 


Sheets 






13 


Spreads 






13 


Table Cloths 






13 


Table Cover 






12 


Table Pads 










19 


Towels, Bath 


241 

884 

55 

26 

83 






241 

884 
55 
26 
83 


26 


Towels, Hand 






12 


Towels, Roller. . . . 






16 


Tray Cloths 






33 


Wash Rags 






27 








16 
13 


Total 


3460 






3460 








16 
10 


Aprons 




3 


119 


122 


Bands 




15 


Bath Robes 










10 


Belts 










13 


Bibs 










10 


Caps 










24 


Chair Cover 










12 


Chemise 










16 


Chemisettes 










17 


Coats 










21 


Collars, Lace . . 










12 


Combinations 




18 


115 


133 


26 


Cords 




16 


Corsets 










19 


Corset Covers 




3 


53 56 


23 


Cushion Covers .... 




25 


Doll Pes 








28 


Draperies 








15 


Drawers, White. . . 




5 
4 


32 37 


27 


Dresses 






81 


11 


Dresses, Ch 




10 


Dressing Sacs 










19 


Fancy Pes 








. . . 


11 


Gloves 










22 









78 



Pound Laundry Service 



LIST 


Total 

Hat 

Pieces 


Total 

Soft 

Pieces 


Total 
Starch 
Pieces 


Total 
Pieces 


Bundle 

No. 


Total 
Pounds 


Jackets 










58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 
oo 


14 


Kimonos 










14 


Neckties 










11 


Night Dresses 




52 


40 


92 


21 


Night Shirts 




15 


Overalls 










17 


Pajamas 










30 


Pants 










20 


Portiers 










19 


Ribbons 










25 


Ruffle 










11 


Sash Curtains 




4 


44 


48 


15 


Scarfs 




28 


Sham B 










19 


Sham P 










10 


Shawls 










15 


Skirts 




28 
75 
50 


39 


67 
75 
50 


10 


Socks 




19 


Stockings 




34 


Sunbonnet 




24 


Supporters 










28 


Sweaters 










15 


Table Covers 










31 


Tidies 










21 


Tray Cloth 










16 


Underdrawers 




81 
109 




81 
109 


18 


Undershirt 




21 


Underwaist 




23 


Vests 










12 


Waists 




22 
41 


89 

32 
3 


111 

73 

3 


23 


Work Shirts 




17 


Wrapper 




16 




. . 




14 


Totals 




495 


643 


1138 


12 












14 
15 
12 
10 
11 
10 
22 
1 5 



100 



Total 



1814 



Thoughts On Finished Family Work' 

By A. T. Downer 

Copyright by Laundryowners National Association 



THE laundry industry at the present time is facing a serious 
decline in shirt and collar work, and their decline must 
be compensated for by a corresponding, if not greater, 
increase in family work in general. With a knowledge of the 
changes which are so rapidly taking place and are upsetting all 
of the old business conditions and necessitating the remolding 
of the laundry industry, it was deemed necessary to make an 
analysis of the present method of handling finished family work. 
The time alloted makes it impossible to more than touch upon 
many subjects which should be treated in greater detail. 

A preliminary investigation rapidly brought to light the 
fact that the subject divides itself into three topics: 

Charge to the Customer 
Payment of the Employee and 
Production. 

It is necessary to first establish the underlying and funda- 
mental principles of each topic. It is my purpose to treat each 
of these topics separately, and in taking up the first we find that 
the underlying principle involved is HOW we are to charge the 
customer — not for a moment thinking of HOW MUCH. 

Let us first consider the various methods now in vogue for 
charging for this class of work. We find seven possible ways — 

(1) THE PIECE CHARGE. The piece charge is so 
familiar that there is little to say regarding it, excepting that in 
the past some laundryowners have felt that it enabled the 
customer to tell in advance the approximate cost of her work 
and to send such articles as were convenient, with no restrictions 
as to what they should be. 

Criticism: This method has virtually been discontinued 
in the case of Flat Work and Rough Dry, as it tended to keep 
down the volume of business from each customer instead of 
influencing her to send the entire Family Washing. 

It was also objectionable in that the dift'erence in size, design, 
and weights of various articles, particularly sheets, resulted in 
the customer who had a lighter and smaller article paying more 
in proportion than the person having a larger and heavier one. 
In the latter instance it is a fact that the customer was securing 
something that she was not paying for. Averages as used under 
the piece charging method do very well from the view-point of 

♦Address delivered before L. N. A. convention. 



80 Pound Laundry Service 

the laundryowner, but are absolutely unfair to the customer. It 
is almost impossible to properly establish a flat price price 
without weighing each individual article and carefully considering 
its design. 

(2) THE DOZEN CHARGE. There is absolutely noth- 
ing in favor of a dozen charge, except that it affords a fine oppor- 
tunity for the customer to try and beat the laundryowner, 
leading to constant controversies as to what shall be allowed in 

(3) COMBINATIONS. There seems to be no real basis 
for favoring combinations, other than that the customer has a 
very rough estimate — and it is indeed rough — on which she 
may anticipate what her charge will be. 

Criticism: The estimate on the part of the customer as to 
what her charge will be is an uncertainty. She may elect to 
have her work done under a certain combination, but the laun- 
dryowner finds that her bundle belongs to another combination 
and consequently there is a dispute. 

We find in this method the same faults as in the Piece and 
Dozen charges, with the principal objection that it is based on 
averages. 

(4) THE SINGLE POUND CHARGE. 

Criticism : The finishing of the hand-ironed articles under 
the single pound charge is unfair to both the laundryowner and 
customer, as it is based on an average rate which does not take 
care of the variations due to design and seasons. Such a rate 
is unfair to the customer because the heavier, plainer goods worn 
by the poorer person are naturally ironed more quickly than the 
more elaborate and lighter weight goods of the well-to-do. 
Again, one customer is getting something for nothing, and 
another one is paying more than she ought to. 

Another objection is that of restricting the customer in the 
sending of certain articles, the cost of handling which the pound 
charge could not consistently cover, i. e., silks, lace curtains, etc. 

The principle argument in favor of the pound charge is 
that a definite quotation may be made to a customer by weighing 
her bundle. 

(5) THE DOUBLE POUND CHARGE. This method 
has the same advantages and disadvantages as those of the 
Single Pound Charge. 

(6) THE POUND AND HOUR CHARGE. The Pound 
and Hour Charge is based upon an initial charge per pound plus 
an hourly charge for hand ironing. This method of charging is 
used in both the Bulk Washing with Individual Bundle Ironing 
and the Individual Bundle methods of Production. There are 
numerous variations as to what production charges are covered 
by the pound charge and by the hour charge, i. e., Starching, 
Folding, Sorting, Packing, etc. It is generally customary. 



Thoughts on Finished Family Work 81 

however, to cover in the Pound charge all costs, including 
general overheads, etc., up to the hand ironing or finishing de- 
partment, and the Hour charge is supposed to take care of the 
labor and overheads of that department. 

Criticism: While the initial pound charge has been 
generally accepted as correct from the view-point of both the 
customer and the laundryowner, the hourly charge for ironing 
has a serious objection in that operators vary in thier capa- 
bilities and speed, and also the productive ability of the indi\ idual 
varies from day to day. For instance, if an operator is in fine 
physical condition, she produces a maximum amount of work. 
If she is not feeling well, her production is curtailed in accord- 
ance with her condition. It has therefore been found necessary 
to adjust the number of hours charged to the customer by adding 
to the time taken by the expert operator, and deducting from 
that taken by the very slow operator, in order to arrive at an 
average charge which would be maintained from week to week. 
One large producer of this class of work said that the customer 
should pay the varying charges as you were selling her the labor 
of ANY ironer from that department, and that she must accept 
the variation as she would, were she obliged to change washer- 
women in her home. I cannot agree in this thought, as we 
can give greater satisfaction to the public at large if we can 
standardize our charges in so far as is possible. The elements of 
guess work and uncertainty must be removed. 

In the Bulk Method of Production it is sometimes custom- 
ary to show the customer an hourly charge, which is arrived at 
on a time basis per garment and not from actual timing of the 
operator. In this case it amounts really to a Pound plus Piece 
Charge. 

It is necessary to trouble customers with a multiplicity of 
restrictions, i. e., Starched Shirts, Collars, Lace Curtains, and 
Woolen Blankets, are not as a rule taken under this method of 
charging. 

(7) THE POUND PLUS PIECE CHARGE. The Pound 
Plus Piece Charge is a step in the right direction, as the initial 
charge per pound has already been accepted by the laundry- 
owners of the country, and has proven satisfactory to both the 
customer and the laundryowner, as demonstrated in the Pound 
Charge for Rough Dry and Flat Work. 

Added to the Pound Charge is a Piece Charge, which in 
some cases has been built up as a result of timing the ironing 
of garments; in others, established because the "other fellow 
has already done it," but in all cases, with but few exceptions, 
without any particular study as to just what costs that particular 
charge should carry. 



82 Pound Laundry Service 

Payment of the Employee. 

The second phase of our subject — that of the Payment of 
the Employee — has but three divisions. First, and most 
generally used, is the weekly or hourly method. This method 
is not good in that there is no incentive toward maximum pro- 
duction, and in that the customer is in most instances not given 
a full value for the charge made, neither does the laundryowner 
receive a maximum return on his investment. 

Second, the Flat Piece Price. This method of payment is 
fairly good, and tends toward a much larger per capita produc- 
tion than in the case of the weekly or hourly payment, but it 
does not provide adequate reward for those who are striving to 
still further increase their production, and thereby enable the 
laundryowner to make some proportionate division of savings 
on overheads as in the Piece Plus Bonus method. 

A Percentage of the Piece Price is no more nor less than a 
flat piece price, and carries with it the same objections as does 
that method of payment. 

Third, the Piece Pins Bonus method is better than the or- 
dinary flat piece work rate, as it affords an opportunity to 
further increase production, and while it is in a sense a species of 
profit-sharing, it is not at all satisfactory from the view-point 
of the operator in that the inefficient operator has no opportunity 
of receiving any share of the bonus. 

Having considered the Charge to the Customer and the 
Payment of the Employee, we are brought to the third topic of 
our subject — Production — which, after all, is the foundation of 
the other two. 

Under Production we find three possible methods: 

(1) The Bulk method, in which all goods are marked for 
identification purposes, segregated for proper washing, and 
carried through the plant in large lots, each class of goods going 
through its own department, and finally being assorted and 
bundled. 

(2) Bulk Washing With Individual Bundle Ironing: In 
this method the goods are marked in, segregated for proper 
washing, are washed and extracted, the Flat Work going to its 
separate department. The starched pieces are separated from 
other clothing or hand-ironed pieces and starched. The goods 
are next sorted into individual bundles, and carried through 
the ironing department in that form. 

(3) Individual Bundle Method: In this process the goods 
are not marked. The identity of each bundle is preserved 
throughout the entire process, with the exception that it is 
generally customary to make three or four divisions of the goods 
for washing purposes, as in wet washes, afterwards assembling 



Thoughts on Finished Family Work 83 

them again before ironing. They are then carried through the 
ironing and bundling departments, still maintaining the indi- 
viduality of each customer's bundle; therefore, sorting is un- 
necessary. 

The foregoing facts having all been considered, in an effort 
to suggest a remedy for the evils of our great industry — though 
applying the suggestions for the present to Finished Family 
Work only — let us think of what are the foundations of our 
operating costs. Omitting for the moment the marking, con- 
sider the next operation — washing — and it is found that the 
greater cost in the wash-room is not labor, but materials and 
overhead, the overhead probably being the largest of any de- 
partment. The operating costs are based almost entirely upon 
pounds of goods requiring pounds of water and materials. The 
number of pieces is scarcely worthy of consideration, for a pound 
of handkerchiefs or other thin goods occupies the same space 
in a machine as does a pound of heavy bedspreads, and the 
mechanical effort in loading and unloading a given number of 
pounds is approximately the same. This condition applies also 
to the number of gallons of water and the amount of materials 
used, so we must admit that the costs of the wash room are 
based on pounds of goods. 

The next largest department is that in which flat work 
is ironed and knit underclothing, etc., is dried in heated tumblers. 
Here we find that the first cost to be considered is the evapora- 
tion of water from the goods in process. So we have pounds of 
goods, from which must be evaporated pounds of water by pounds 
of coal. Again, as in the wash room, this cost is based on pounds 
of goods. 

In these two large departments, having found that the costs 
are based on pounds of goods, we must therefore charge the 
customer on the same basis for this portion of the work. Because 
of the attending evils of either flat piece or pound charges as 
indicated we must add a small initial piece charge — say one cent 
each — as is now being done in some localities in charging for 
semi-finished work. By adding this fiat piece charge we have 
reasonably covered all ordinary handling charges. 

Up to the point of entering the finishing department for 
articles of clothing, etc., we will be able to have but one method 
of charging for both Semi-Finished and Finished Family Work, 
merely adding in the case of the latter a proper piece charge, 
therefore avoiding confusion by having a multiplicity of schemes. 
At this point our trouble begins, for in charging for Finished 
Family Work we find many costs which are not attached to 
other classes of work. Those in mind are as follows: 



84 Pound Laundry Service 

Office increase (piece work records, etc.) 

Marking increase (taping delicate fabrics, etc.) 

Washing increase (bagging or hand washing.) 

Starching charge. 

Separation of goods for finishing. 

Inspecting and folding. 

Sorting increase. 

Packing charges. 

Lost time. 

Extra supervision. 

Insurance against damage. 

It is noted that among these we find several which are at- 
tached to the ironing or finishing, and, coupled with the labor 
of finishing the articles, can be justly taken care of in no other 
way than through a sliding scale of piece charges. Here we reach 
the point wherein our industry has been weak. We have in 
some instances built up charges for laundering on what seemed 
to be costs, but how have we arrived at them? If we admit 
frankly our weaknesses, we will find that most of us have es- 
tablished our charges to our customers by rule of thumb or 
made up a list which somebody else had used for a long time. 
These lists have been corrected from time to time because of an 
insufficient profit, but never scientifically. 

Conditions are much better today than they were a year 
or two ago, because of the efforts of our National Association to 
promote cost finding among its members. Much valuable 
information has been brought out, and a reference to the findings 
of the Department of Accounting and Cost Finding of the 
Service Bureau of the L. N. A. will bear out most of the state- 
ments made. 

Having arrived at these conclusions, I will attempt to 
suggest a logical procedure for handling this branch of our in- 
dustry. The first step would be to establish an itemized work- 
ing chart containing a complete list of all articles in general use, 
each article to have a number of classifications with descriptions 
according to its various designs. For instance, perhaps fifteen 
of shirt waists and as many of shirts, etc., so that in using the 
chart A reasonably close identification of a garment in its class 
may be made. After establishing this chart, timing tests must 
then be made in a number of plants, timing operators from the 
very slowest to the very best. After perhaps several hundred 
operators have been timed on the same type of article, we can 
establish a definite, positive average time which will admit 
of no dispute by operators who are incompetent or by the 
customer who is incapable of judging. Having once established 
the time actually consumed in finishing a certain garment, we 
have a definite base on which to pay the employee, and on 



Thoughts on Finished Family Work 85 

which to build up the charges to the customer. The time for 
finishing the various articles having been once standardized, a 
chart may be furnished by the L. N. A. to its members, from 
which each concern may build up its selling price in accordance 
with local conditions. No standard price can ever be fixed, 
because of variation of labor costs in different localities. Over- 
heads, too, vary, and the quality of work desired would differ 
greatly in accordance with the class of people being served. 
Then, again, one man is catering to customers who seek price 
rather than quality, and the other fellow is dealing with those 
who demand nothing but the best. Each man must work out 
his charges, based upon his own peculiar conditions, but this is 
not the difficult task which it would seem, once the foundation 
is established. 

Probably not all of you realize the foundation upon which 
the many costs arising in our industry should be based. Have 
you ever considered reducing the cost of operating your plant to a 
productive hour basis? Other industries use this basis. Why 
should not we? To illustrate. Supposing that you have ten 
operators working in the finishing department, and these ten 
people work nominally nine hours a day — that would give us 
a total of 90 possible productive hours per day, which divided 
into the total cost of operating this department, including all 
overheads, will give us the operating cost per hour for that 
•department. After determining the fraction of the hour neces- 
sary in which to finish the article, the charge to the customer may 
be positively and logically made. In this connection I would 
suggest that the overhead be computed on each class of goods 
going through this department, as it would seem to me that the 
more elaborate garments should carry a larger percentage of 
overhead charges than should those comprising the great bulk 
of the work. 

Accepting the fact that the predetermined time required for 
finishing the article is the basis on which we are to establish 
our charge to the customer and the payment of the employee, we 
must, in paying the operator, forget old methods and keep pace 
with the times, for the "hand-writing on the wall" reads that 
the broader forms of Socialism are rapidly developing, and, 
quoting from our soldier boys — "Two days in the trenches makes 
a man a Socialist." We are rapidly reaching a point where we 
will be forced to pay our employees on a profit-sharing basis. 
Do not forget for a moment that labor is not satisfied with profit- 
sharing in its present form, i. e. — handing it a sop after legitimate 
and water stockholdings have had their dividends, with "labor 
coming in for what is left." It is easy enough to make such 
statements as this, but how about the remedy? What can we do? 

Here is a method that has been developed in the case of 
operators on Finished Family Work in my own plant. These 



86 Pound Laundry Service 

figures which I will give you were worked out on a pre-war basis 
and have been in use in our plant for the last year with the 
greatest of success, having stimulated ironers, who on a fiat 
piece work basis were never able to earn more than $12.00 or 
$13.00 per week, to a point where they are now making $20.00 
and $21.00 at the same rates. A girl was guaranteed $8.00 a 
week as a minimum, on the basis that at that wage she was at 
least holding her own and carrying her proportion of overheads 
of that department. In order to allow her to share immediately 
in her saving of overhead expense through increased production, 
she was given 

When she reached $9.00 a week, 2 per cent or $0.20 

When she reached 10.00 a week, 3 per cent or .35 

When she reached 11.00 a week, 4 per cent or ,50 

When she reached 12.00 a week, 5 per cent or .65 

When she reached 13.00 a week, 6 per cent or .85 

When she reached 14.00 a week, 7 per cent or 1,05 

When she reached 15,00 a week, 8 per cent or 1,30 

If she can be induced through a profit-sharing scheme to 
build her wages to $16.00 it naturally follows that she has increasd 
her production by 100 per cent on the same overhead. Does it 
not follow that she should share in a splitting of this overhead? 
It is not by any means necessary to give her a major portion 
of her savings, neither is she entitled to it, but if this can be 
done, we have solved the problem of profit-sharing for at least 
one branch of the business, and, I think, for others. 

It has been said that the time of a laborer's reward must be 
in accordance with his scale in life, or in other words, that the 
man who is digging a trench (not a war one, if you please) is all 
brawn and little brains, consequently he must be rewarded im- 
mediately. The other extreme is the multi-millionaire who is 
willing to take his profits once in five years, just so that he gets 
them, and the rest of us are graded between these two extremes. 
These finishers of ours are quite close to the first class, as their 
work is almost entirely with their hands, consequently they must 
be rewarded almost from day to day. 

By this we have accomplished our aim, and proven that we 
have increased production and received the earnest co-operation 
of every employee in the department, because we have allowed 
every operator to share in profits as soon as her wages advanced 
beyond the minimum. We have removed the objection of only 
a few skilled operators receiving bonuses and less-skilled ones 
receiving nothing. 

To digress a moment, let me suggest that the possibilities 
of this thought are great. Many of you know Percy Mendelson. 
(I trust you will pardon me for being personal, but I think a man 



Thoughts on Finished Family Work 87 

should always have credit for his ideas.) In presenting this 
thought to Percy Mendelson and his partner (our genial friend 
— Ed Lane), they listened very carefully to a presentation of this 
scheme for paying the operator, when Mr. Mendelson suddenly 
turned to Mr. Lane and said, "Ed — drivers." The possibilities 
of applying a sliding scale of this sort to the payment of drivers 
instead of a flat commission are great, for there are many in- 
justices to drivers in a flat commission basis. Those of you 
who have not established piece work methods in your plants 
should do so, and the old contention that a plant is too small 
to be placed on a piece work basis is absolutely incorrect, for the 
whole question is merely that of production savings versus clerical 
costs. 

Having covered two phases of the three fundamentals in- 
volved in the handling of Finished Family Work, we are brought 
to the question of production, and to refresh your minds I will 
again say that there are three possible methods — Bulk, or Quan- 
tity Production; Bulk Washing with sorting into individual 
bundles either before or after starching and carrying them 
through the finishing room as individual units; or the straight 
individual bundle method, starting without marking, then 
washing goods in multiple pocket wheels. The individual 
bundle method is in vogue in many establishments, and while it 
seemingly saves much expense, is a delusion and a snare. We 
laundryowners have been too prone to consider direct costs 
only, ignoring many indirect ones which are vital. One of the 
most glaring instances is that of the psychological effect upon 
the customer of our being unable to positively identify her goods, 
as is the case when they are not marked. Just imagine a woman's 
opinion of your organization if you have to say to her when she 
claims an article is lost — "Well, the only thing I can do about it 
is for you to come down to the laundry and pick out your skirt" — 
and the chances are you cannot even do that, for the skirt may 
have been sent to some other customer. The evils in this case 
are far reaching. Here also we are brought in direct contact 
with the thought of quantity production. Just consider what a 
difference in cost there is between individual bundle washing 
and bulk washing. In making comparisons of these methods, 
tests have been made which brought out the fact that the average 
weight of white goods handled in a 36"x96" six-pocket washer, 
washing under the individual bundle system, was only about 
100 pounds of white goods to a load, whereas in a 42"x70" two- 
pocket washer, which has approximately the same cubic capacity 
as has the 36"x96" six-pocket washer — a perfectly safe load would 
be at least 300 pounds of white goods. The comparison is 
obvious, as the amount of water and materials in either case 
would be very nearly the same. 



88 Pound Laundry Service 

In the ironing or finishing departments it is a conceded fact 
that work handled in bulk can be segregated and the ordinary 
garments which require little or no finishing handled by one group 
of operators who are unskilled, leaving the finer lingerie to experts. 
In the individual bundle method we compel a girl who should be 
allowed to earn $20.00 to $25.00 a week to do so much of the 
lower grade work that she is unable to obtain a suitable compen- 
sation for her greatest skill, and is brought down nearer to the 
level of the ordinary and unskilled operator. Why should we 
in the laundry business not finish our product along lines similar 
to those used in the manufacture of machinery — one department 
handling but one class of goods — another a little higher grade, 
and so on. The ideal laundry of the future is one where there 
is no special shirt, flat work, or family work department, but 
just a great big laundry in which there are several channels 
through which each class of goods travel in a steady stream. 
It is up to us to study new production methods, and help the 
laundry machinery people develop new machines. For in- 
stance, let us get away from the old hand ironing of skirt or other 
rufifles. Why cannot a machine be devised with a pointed iron 
similar to our ordinary flat iron — working back and forth with a 
reciprocal or cam motion — possibly lifting from the board on the 
reverse stroke — the point of the iron facing the operator so 
that she may stretch a ruffle between her hands with the gathers 
toward her, and pass it along from one side to the other with the 
iron constantly in motion, poking up into the gathers, and 
heated to a temperature which it would be impossible to use in 
a hand iron? 

If you men could see the skill which is developed by mill 
operators who are scalloping and binding the scallops of a bed- 
spread, this little scheme for ironing rufifles would seem like 
child's play in comparison, for with a little automatic machine 
which cuts and at the same time overcasts, if we may call it 
such, the scallops of a bedspread, the operators through practice 
become so skillful that they start at one corner of the spread, and 
without any guide or measure cut the scallops of a uniform size 
and form a perfect scallop at each corner. 

Again, if a suitable double-shoe flat work ironer, somewhat 
similar to the one which was brought upon the market t few 
years ago, and having two rolls of say 12-inch diameter, could 
be brought out, ironing both right and wrong sides at one opera- 
tion, I believe that we could iron very many of the plainer 
articles upon it so well that no hand finishing would be necessary, 
and the speed with which the goods could be finished would be 
far greater than even that of the garment press. 

Why cannot team work be used in handling shirt waists as 
well as in handling shirts? 



Thoughts on Finished Family Work 89 

Picture a rugged but unskilled operator, with a specially 
devised garment press equipped with a pneumatic treadle, 
handling other plain garments which have buttons on them. 

This study of production in detail is a big one, and it is 
high time that we laundryowners co-operated with the research 
men of the laundry machinery companies and studied with 
them in an effort to produce machinery which will enable us to 
turn out well-finished family work to the public at a price which 
they can afford to pay, for in the past our prices have been pro- 
hibitive. Of course, under present war-time conditions little 
can be done, as our energies are all devoted toward winning 
the war, but it would be wise to think of these affairs now in 
preparation for the future. With the surface of the immense 
field of finished work barely scratched, we have a possible volume 
to look forward to, the magnitude of which one can scarcely 
grasp, and as our business is one of selling service and labor, why 
not sell each customer all we can? One owner of a large plant 
said that he felt we should make the customer do as much for 
us as we could in separating various classes of work before send- 
ing to the laundry, but to me this thought is altogether wrong, 
for our great desire today is not to increase the number of 
our customers, but to get from each customer the largest amount 
of money possible. So if we can teach the customer to allow us 
to do all of her work for her, and sell her our services not only for 
the washing and finishing of her goods, but for the labor in 
segregating, we have sold her just so much more and it is up to 
us to see that we get a profit on this extra labor. 

In studying costs of production let us be frank with our cus- 
tomers and with ourselves, "lay the card on the table," and ask 
the customers just what they want and what they are willing 
to pay for. How many women want to pay for the privilege 
of opening a bureau drawer and seeing garments which are 
beautifully finished in every part? An investigation shows that 
there are a mighty few — probably not over 2 per cent — the 
other big 98 per cent insisting that the parts which show must 
be perfectly finished, but that those which do not and generally 
are the portions which require the greatest amount of hand 
labor, should be finished but moderately well. One of the 
best illustrations that I can bring to mind is that of the night 
dress. The top or yoke must be perfectly finished for obvious 
reasons, but less care may be used in finishing the lower portion, 
of the garment. Another illustration is that of the skirt, the 
bottom and rufifles of which must also be perfectly finished, 
while the gathers may be ironed flat on a garment press, avoiding 
just so much hand work. As most of us are building our busi- 
ness on volume rather than the small amount which must 
be handled by artists, we are not going to cater to the 2 per cent 



90 Pound Laundry Service 

of the people, as we can well afford to leave this class of business 
for the small home or hand laundry, where each person is an 
expert, for but mighty few of the larger plants have ever been 
able to find a profit in handling any ultra-quality work. In 
building up our business it is for each man to select the group 
of people to whom he may cater and develop his plant accordingly. 
Here again we may quote from a certain machinery house 
which has specialized in developing machinery for semi-finished 
work. Using their statistics we find that the incomes of only 
5 per cent of the population of the average city are over $3,000 
a year; that about 9 per cent are from $1,000 to $3,000 and 
that the other 85 per cent are under $1,000. In the latter 
group we find our big volume, and it does not take long to decide 
to which group we are going to cater for our real profits. Every 
one of us knows that it is hard to make a profit on any kind of 
hand work. In the larger metropolitan districts it is of course 
possible to specialize and cater to the smaller percentage because 
that percentage represents a greater number of people who 
want ultra-quality work, but the real profit for most laundries 
is not within these smaller groups. 

As was stated in the beginning, radical changes are necessary, 
and these thoughts, gentlemen, while seemingly impracticable, 
are but an effort toward an ultimate end — a large per capita sale. 

Make motion that each organization appoint a special com- 
mittee for research and study of the Finished Family Work 
branch of the Industry. 



See page 91 for analysi 



aundry Co., Cincinnati. O. 





1 


Numb 




Cost 






Weight 


Pieceng 


Flat Ironing 






u 
Q 












3 
o 




Total 




•00 


ce 




JS 






u 






M 


3 


"O 




•on 






1— 1 






GO 

s 

s 

3 
O 

u 


O 
Pi 
en 

•o 

G 
3 
O 
04 


C 
3 
O 

o 




5 
O 

a! 
« 


4-> 
(« 

o 
U 

"3 

O 


■oc 

8 

3 

(/5 


u 

O 


*-> 
o 


Cost 


} 


21 


40 


41 


75 


fO.77 


$0.03 


sS0.06 


$0.09 


v$0.86 


) 


16 


35 


101 


56 


.62 


.04 


.07 


.11 


.73 


5H 


9 


22>^ 


23 


50 


.22 


.02 


.06 


.08 


.30 


5 


13>^ 


29>< 


45 


62 


1.68 


.04 


.07 


.11 


1.79 


5K 


31>^ 


57 


80 


144 


2.21 


.05 


.08 


.13 


2.34 


3 


10 


23 


32 


53 


.74 


.03 


.05 


.08 


.82 


3K 


7'A 


21 


36 


46 


.74 


.03 


.06 


.09 


.83 


5}4 


uy2 


31 


62 


36 


1.41 


.03 


.08 


.11 


1.52 


OK 


18>^ 


29 


52 


60 


1.38 


.03 


.04 


.07 


1.45 


5 


21 


36 


54 


90 


1.18 


.03 


.04 


.07 


1.25 


6 


lOK 


26>^ 


30 


33 


1.01 


.04 


.12 


.16 


1.17 


9}4 


10 


49>^ 


68 


39 


.40 


.03 


.07 


.10 


.50 


7K 


9K 


17 


24 


31 


.95 


.03 


.06 


.09 


1.04 


2 


4 


16 


43 


8 


.23 


.03 


.04 


.07 


.30 


61^ 


14 


3oy 


41 


59 


1.60 


.04 


.09 


.13 


1.73 


6 


16 


32 


59 


67 


1.36 


.04 


.04 


.08 


1.44 


6y2 


6y 


13 


15 


17 


.67 


.02 


.03 


.05 


.72 


1 


11 


22 


31 


76 


.90 


.03 


.06 


.09 


.99 


8>^ 


i>^ 


10 


9 


4 


.15 


.02 


.02 


.04 


.19 


1 


13>^ 


34>^ 


53 


58 


1.77 


.03 


.05 


.08 


1.85 


9 


19>^ 


ssy 


96 


88 


.97 


.02 


.06 


.08 


1.05 


6 


6 


12 


15 


33 


.40 


.02 


.02 


.04 


.44 


2 


4 


16 


15 


16 


.22 


.02 


.02 


.04 


.26 


9K 


4y2 


14 


29 


11 


.69 


.02 


.02 


.04 


.73 





\iy2 


37^ 


47 


53 


■1.71 


.02 


.06 


.08 


1.79 


5 


iQy 


353^ 


71 


94 


1.22 


.02 


.05 


.07 


1.29 


6^ 


6 


121^ 


16 


26 


, .50 


.01 


.03 


.04 


.54 


2K 


3^ 


16 


52 


10 


.36 


.02 


.07 


.09 


.45 


6^ 


5 


11>^ 


28 


13 


.29 


.01 


.03 


.04 


.33 


6 


22 


38 


44 


67 


1.02 


.03 


.08 


.11 


1.13 


2y2 


iiy 


30 


62 


88 


.85 


.03 


.10 


.13 


.98 


2 


9 


31 


47 


46 


.52 


.03 


.10 


.13 


.65 


1 


10>^ 


siy 


66 


38 


.46 


.04 


.12 


.16 


.62 


9K 


9y 


19 


22 


75 


.34 


.02 


.04 


.06 


.40 





6y 


16>^ 


43 


15 


.41 


.02 


.04 


.06 


.47 


5 


9 


24 


43 


28 


.29 


.02 


.05 


.07 


.36 


7K 


17 


44>^ 


57 


43 


2.26 


.02 


.04 


.06 


2.32 


1>^ 


6 


17>^ 


47 


22 


.43 


.02 


.04 


.06 


.49 


9 


6 


15 


27 


19 


.96 


.02 


.04 


.06 


1.02 


1 


24>^ 


45K 


7C 


loe 


1.68 


.02 


.08 


.10 


1.78 


8 


483 


1081 


1796 


1955 


55.57 


SI. 07 


$2.28 


$3.35 


$38.92 



1 



See page 91 for analysis. 



POUND LAUNDRY SERVICE 

SELLING PRICE 15c THE POUND (Minimum Service 20 Pounds) 
Exhibit of Actual Service to Forty Patrons, Summer Season, July and August, 1918 

This Compilation, arranged by S. Bacharach. is by courtesy of The Model Laundry Co., Cincinnati. O. 









Number 


- 




Selling 


Price 








Time of 


Time 


of 




Cost 


Cost 





I 


Weight 




Pieces 










Rough Dry Ironing 


Flat Ironing 


Rough Dry Ironing 


Flat Ironing 














^ 








V 


LIST OR PIECE PRICE 


Ui 
V 










c 














u 
a) 






E 

3 


« 
b 
<« 
•o 

c 

3 
O 
Oh 


.a 
■oo 
3 
O 

in 

•o 

C 
3 


c 

3 
O 


4-* 
« 

fa 


XI 

3 
O 

S 

o 
<u 


o 


OB 

2 

ce 


2-^ 


*3 

u 

u 




J3 
«II 
3 
o 


4-* 

fa 


2 

o 


2 

u 

O 

03 
fa 


09 

Ui 

&4 


a 

o 
u 

a 

03 


e2 


a 

a 


2 

In 

o 

4-1 
fa 


e2 


o 

u 

u 

i 

a 
fa 


1 


■as 

c 

"3 
2 

•o 

c 

HI 


o 

u 
"3 
o 
h 


■OB 

c 

a 
« 


O 

u 



fa 


o 


Total 
Cost 








1 


















Hr. Min. 


Hr. Min. 


Hr. Min. 


Hr. Min. 


Hr. Min. 


Hr. Min 


Hr. Min. 










1 








1 


19 


?,1 


40 


41 


75 


116 


$6.00 


$5.53 


$4.80 


$8.40 


$1.33 


$9.73 


. . 30 


.. 6 


2 40 


3 16 


. . 10 


.. 11 


.. 21 


s$0.08 


$0.02 


$0.67 


$o.77|$o.o: 


jso.or 


$0.09 


$0.86 


? 


19 


16 


35 


101 


56 


157 


5.25 


4.53 


4.20 


8.15 


1.33 


9.48 


.. 30 


.. 10 


2 .. 


2 40 


.. 9 


.. 10 


.. 19 


.08 


.04 


.5C 


.62 


.0^ 


[ .07 


.11 


.73 


^ 


133^ 


9 


22J^ 


23 


50 


73 


3.38 


2.75 


2.70 


4.61 


.95 


5.56 


.. 20 


.. 10 


.. 30 


1 . . 


7 


.. 6 


.. 13 


.05 


.04 


.13 


.22 


.02 


.oc 


.08 


.30 


A 


16 


131^ 


29K 


45 


62 


107 


4.42 


3.82 


3.54 


6.56 


1.12 


7.68 


.. 20 


.. 34 


4 30 


5 24 


.. 8 


.. 9 


.. 17 


.05 


.19 


1.44 


1.68 


.04 


.07 


.11 


1.79 


5 


2sy2 


3V/; 


57 


80 


144 


224 


8.55 


8.09 


6.84 


11.71 


1.79 


13.50 


.. 50 


.. 20 


5 . . 


6 10 


.. 10 


.. 10 


20 


.13 


.48 


1.6C 


2.21 


.05 


.08 


.13 


2.34 


6 


13 


10 


23 


32 


53 


85 


3.45 


2.91 


2. Id 


3.43 


.91 


4.34 


.. 30 


.. 3 


2 . . 


2 33 


.. 5 


.. 5 


.. 10 


.08 


.02 


.64 


.74 


.03 


.05 


.08 


.82 


7 


131^ 


71.^ 


21 


36 


46 


82 


3.15 


2.45 


2.52 


3.85 


.95 


4.80 


.. 40 




2 . . 


2 40 


.. 5 


.. 6 


. . 11 


.10 




.64 


.74 


.03 


.06 


.09 


.83 


8 


\6V, 


141^ 


31 


62 


36 


98 


4.64 


4.05 


3.72 


4.90 


1.14 


6.04 


.. 20 


.. 40 


3 30 


4 30 


.. 18 


.. 32 


.. 50 


.05 


.24 


1.12 


1.41 


.03 


.08 


.11 


1.52 


9 


\oy. 


181/^ 


29 


52 


60 


112 


4.35 


4.44 


3.48 


7.37 


.74 


8.11 


.. 40 


.. 40 


3 15 


4 35 


.. 14 


. . 18 


. . 32 


.10 


.24 


1.04 


1.38 


.03 


.04 


.07 


1.45 


10 


15 


21 


36 


54 


9C 


144 


5.40 


5.25 


4.32 


10.18 


1.03 


11.21 


.. 20 


.. 5 


3 40 


4 5 


.. 14 


. . 18 


.. 32 


.05 


.03 


1.10 


1.18 


.03 


.04 


.07 


1.25 


11 


16 


lOK 


26K 


30 


33 


63 


3.98 


3.22 


3.18 


4.65 


1.12 


5.77 


.. 6 


.. 5 


3 ..| 3 11 


.. 20 


.. 45 


1 5 


.02 


.03 


.96 


1.01 


.04 


.12 


.16 


1.17 


12 


39^ 


10 


49>^ 


68 


39 


107 


7.42 


4.77 


5.94 


3.52 


2.77 


6.29 


,. 30 




1 . . 


1 30 


.. 18 


.. 32 


.. 50 


.08 




.32 


.40 


.03 


.07 


.10 


.50 


13 


TA 


9H 


17 


24 


31 


55 


2.55 


2.42 


2.04 


4.08 


1.53 


5.61 


.. 30 


.. 12 


2 15 


2 57 


.. 16 


.. 24 


. . 40 


.08 


.07 


.80 


.95 


.03 


.06 


.09 


1.04 


4 


[ 12 


4 


16 


43 


8 


51 


2.40 


1.64 


1.92 


1.33 


.84 


2.17 


.. 20 


.. 14 


.. 12 


...46 


.. 14 


. . 18 


. . 32 


.05 


.09 


.09 


.23 


.03 


.04 


.07 


.30 




> 16K 


14 


30>^ 


41 


59 


100 


4.57 


3.95 


3.66 


6.28 


1.16 


7.44 


.. 46 


.. 10 


4 30 


5 26 


.. 18 


. . 36 


.. 54 


.10 


.06 


1.44 


1.60 


.04 


.09 


.13 


1.73 




. 16 


16 


32 


59 


67 


126 


4.80 


4.32 


3.84 


5.74 


1.12 


6.86 


.. 50 


.. 6 


3 45 


4 41 


.. 14 


.. 18 


. . 32 


.12 


.04 


1.20 


1.36 


.04 


.04 


.08 


1.44 




6M 


6K 


13 


15 


17 


32 


1.95 


1.75 


1.56 


2.10 


.46 


2.56 




.. 10 


2 


2 10 


.. 8 


. . 12 


. . 20 




.03 


.64 


.67 


.02 


.03 


.05 


.72 


< 


i 11 


11 


22 


31 


76 


107 


3.30 


2.97 


2.64 


5.97 


.77 


6.74 


.. 40 




2 30 


3 10 


. . 12 


. . 18 


. . 30 


.10 




.80 


.90 


.03 


.06 


.09 


.99 


1» 


3 21 


13K 


10 
34K 


9 

53 


4 
58 


13 
HI 


1.50 
5.18 


.89 
4.17 


1.20 
4.14 


.64 
6.59 


.60 
1.47 


1.24 
8.06 






25 


...25 
6 . . 


.. 6 
1? 


.. 9 

21 


. . 15 
33 






.15 
1.44 


.15 
1.77 


.02 
.03 


.02 
.05 


.04 
.08 


.19 


21 


. 50 


.. 40 


4 30 


.13 


?0 


1.85 


2 


1 19 


19/2 


38>^ 


96 


88 


184 


5.77 


5.23 


4.62 


7.36 


1.33 


8.69 


.. 50 


.. 7 


2 30 


3 27 


10 


24 


. . 34 


.13 


.04 


.80 


.97 


.02 


.06 


.08 


1.05 


2 


2 6 


6 


12 


15 


33 


48 


1.80 


1.62 


1.44 


2.07 


.42 


2.49 


,. 40 


.. in 


50 


1 40 


.. 6 


12 


18 


.10 


,05 


.25 


.-10 


.02 


.02 


.04 


.44 


2 


3 12 


4 


16 


15 


16 


31 


2.40 


1.64 


1.92 


1.37 


.84 


2.21 


.. 20 


.. 3 


. . 30 


... 53 


. . 6 


. . 9 


15 


.05 


.02 


.15 


.22 


02 


.02 


.04 


.26 


2 


4 9}4 


4^2 


14 


29 


11 


40 


2.10 


1.57 


1.68 


2.95 


.67 


3.62 


10 


.. 4 


2 . 


2 14 


. . 8 


. . 9 


17 


.03 


.02 


.64 


69 


02 


.02 


.04 


.73 


2 


5 20 


iiy2 


37^ 


47 


bJ 


100 


5.62 


4.90 


4.50 


7.26 


1.40 


8.66 


, 46 


.. 24 


4 30 


5 40 


. . 10 


. . 24 


. . 34 


.13 


.14 


1.44 


1.71 


02 


.06 


.08 


1.79 


2 


6 15 


20^5 


35K 


71 


9^ 


165 


5.33 


5.15 


4.26 


8.40 


1.05 


9.45 


. . 40 


.. 10 


3 45 


4 35 


.. 10 


. . 21 


. . 31 


.10 


.06 


1.06 


1.22 


02 


.05 


.07 


1.29 


2 


7 6>^ 


6 


12K 


U 


) 2t 


) 42 


1.88 


1.66 


1.50 


2.53 


.46 


2.99 


. 5 




1 30 


1 35 


. . 4 


. . 12 


. . 16 


.02 




.48 


50 


01 


.03 


.04 


.54 


2 


8 12K 


^^>'= 


' 16 


5^ 


! 11 


) b2 


2.4C 


1.57 


1.92 


1.74 


.88 


2.62 




. . 6 


1 . . 


1 6 


. . 10 


. . 27 


. . 37 




.04 


.32 


36 


02 


.07 


.09 


.45 


2 


9 614 

16 

1 12>^ 

2 22 

3 21 

4 9y, 
15 10 

56 15 

57 271/ 

58 111/ 
?9 9 
40 21 


5 
22 

ny 

9 

10>' 
91/ 

6y 

9 
^ 17 
^ 6 

6 

24> 


113^ 


it 


i 1. 


i 41 


1.73 


1.46 


1.38 


2.27 


.46 


2.73 


.. 30 


.. 20 


. . 20 


1 10 


. . 4 


. . 12 


. . 16 


.08 


.10 


.11 


.29 


,01 


.03 


.04 


.33 


3 


38 


4^ 


1 6 


111 


5.7C 


5.52 


4.56 


9.42 


1.12 


10.54 


1 15 


.. 20 


1 35 


3 10 


. . 10 


. . 25 


. . 35 


.18 


.12 


.72 


1 02 


03 


.08 


.11 


1.13 


3 


; 30 


6. 


i 8} 


i LSI 


) 4.5C 


) 4.38 


3.60 


6.08 


.88 


6.96 


1 .. 


.. 50 


1 20 


3 10 


.. 10 


40 


50 


.14 


.29 


.42 


85 


03 


.10 


.13 


.98 


3 
3 

3 

■5 

•- 


31 
2 31>^ 
^ 19 

i \6y: 

24 
44>^ 
173/ 
15 
^ 451/ 


4 
' 6 

2 
' 4 

4 

! 5 

^ 4 
2 


7 4< 
3 3i 

2 7 

3 1 
3 2 
7 4 
7 2 
7 1 


) 9. 
? 10- 
5 9' 

5 5{ 

8 7 
3 10( 
2 6< 

9 4 

6 17 


5 4 . 65 
[ 4.7^ 
? 2.8! 
5 2.4' 
I 3.6( 
) 6.65 
? 2.6. 
5 2.2 
5 6.8 


3.34 
- 3.57 
) 2.5(5 
^ 2.0C 
) 2.85 
5 5.32 
? 2.0( 
5 1.8: 
3 6.3- 


3.72 

3.78 

2.28 

1.98 

2.88 

5.34 

) 2.10 

i 1.80 

^ 5.46 


3.07 
5.48 
4.44 
2.79 
2.77 
8.00 
2.35 
2.05 
10.44 


1.54 

1.47 

.67 

.70 

1.05 

1.93 

.81 

.63 

1.47 


4.61 
6.95 
5.11 
3.49 
3.82 
9.93 
3.16 
2.68 
11.91 


.. 50 
1 .. 
. . 40 
.. 20 
. 20 
.. 40 
.. 44 

;; 50 


■ • 6 
.. 10 

.. 7 
.. 40 

.'. 20 


1 15 

1 . . 
.. 40 

1 . . 
.. 40 

6 .. 

1 . . 

3 . . 

4 30 


2 5 

2 .. 
1 26 
1 30 
1 7 
7 20 
1 44 

3 .. 
5 40 


.. 10 
.. 10 
.. 6 
.. 6 
.. 10 
.. 6 
.. 6 
.. 8 
. . 10 


.. 40 
.. 50 
.. 15 
.. 15 
. . 21 
. . 18 
. . 18 
. . 18 
. . 30 


.. 50 
1 . . 
.. 21 
.. 21 
.. 31 
. . 24 
.. 24 
. . 26 
. . 40 


.12 
.14 
.10 
.05 
.05 
.10 
.11 


.04 
.06 
.04 
.24 


.40 
.32 
.20 
.30 
.20 

1.92 
.32 
.96 

1.44 


.52 
.46 
.34 
.41 
.29 

2.26 
.43 
.96 

1.68 


.03 
.04 
.02 
.02 
.02 
.02 
.02 
.02 
.02 


.10 
.12 
.04 
.04 
.05 
.04 
.04 
.04 
.08 


.13 
.16 
.06 
.06 
.07 
.06 
.06 
.06 
.10 


.65 
.62 
.40 
.47 
.36 

2.32 
.49 

1.02 




2 7u lu 


.12 


.12 


1.78 




598 


483 


1081 


1796 195 


5 375 


1S162.1 


5S138.4( 


5$129.72 


S202.9C 


» S42.91 


$245.81 


21 12 


8 22 


92 7 


121 41 


6 38 13 18 


19 56 


?3.20'S3.20S29.17.1 


S35.57S1.07S2.28S3.35, 


$38.92 



Pound Laundry Service 

By S. Bacharach 



For the purpose of establishing the feasibility of selling Pound 
Laundry Service at \S cents the pound, attention is directed to the 
analysis of Pound Laundry Service to forty patrons, and which is 
exhibited in the first twelve columns of the accompanying chart. 
The remaining columns are only an index of operating cost and are 
not subject to analysis in our pages as the editorial policy of this 
periodical precludes publicity of complete actual operating cost 
details. Comment or rejoinder dealing with summaries and which 
do not disclose complete cost of any single classification or unit and 
which give only general deductions will be welcomed and our readers 
are invited on this basis to participate in The Starchroom open 
forum. — The Editor. 

IN December of last year, the writer pointed out in a Starch- 
room article that the necessity of the laundry business was 
greater volume. How shall we increase revenue by more 
business and without any considerable increase in operating 
expenses? Partly due to war conditions and partly because of a 
mistaken conception that the problem was involved, there has 
been no real effort to try out the proposed recommendation of 
Pound Laundry Service. The convention held in Chicago under 
the auspices of the L. N. A., the several excellent contributions 
on the subject by Mr. H. H. Gilpatrick and the recent scholarly 
analysis by Mr. A. T. Downer, have all tended to prove feasibility 
but there has been no acceptance of a fixed price, no concerted 
movement for a universal system, and no definite plan for the 
introduction of a new phase of service, and which the v/riter 
believes is the solution of the volume problem and a very great 
and undoubted betterment of the business. Present indications 
point to the coming of a readjustment and reconstruction period, 
which will involve the whole world but which from the viewpoint 
of trained observers will not affect nor seriously influence the 
laundry business. Labor will perhaps still be limited, supply 
commodities be high priced and other war conditions adversely 
prevail, but present prices, even though somewhat lowered, are 
safe for any possible commercial condition that may arise. 
It would seem therefore that laundry experts should come to 
some agreement on the principles and the prices which shall 
govern a Pound Laundry Service, and which shall be so elastic 
and comprehensive that the housewife may send all the linen 
and apparel to the power laundry. 



92 Pound Laundry Service 

In December, 1917, I sought to rivet attention to the obvious 
anticipated slump, and said at that time, "there is a menace 
and a possible acute depression in the coming months if laundry 
volume is not increased." The record of the past eleven months 
justifies the prediction and there is as much need now as there 
was then of instituting a service which, by reason of price and 
popularity, will create a substitute for the disappearing volume 
of shirts and collars. The feasibility of the plan proposed in 
The Starchroom has only been denied because of a refusal to 
accept the price that was tentatively offered. Mr. Downer, in 
his L. N. A. address, divides the subject into three parts: the 
charge to the customer, the payment of the employee and pro- 
duction. The latter two divisions need not enter into the dis- 
cussion, because the price necessarily will protect operating cost 
and the methods to be employed are so debatable and the divers- 
ity so great between the efficient and the inefficient manager 
that the required education would be impossible of speedy 
diffusion. If some efficient manager makes a success of any 
phase of laundry operation or service, he will speedily find imi- 
tators, and each one will adapt his plant or his methods in conform- 
ity with his own limitations. It required no special conference 
and no agreed methods for the introduction of the present 
rough dry business and which, like Topsy, "jest growed." 
It was correct, however, in principle, the methods were perfected 
by a species of evolution and the price advanced from 3 and 4 
cents the pound by stages, because conditions changed and the 
higher price became reasonable. In the face of this conclusion, 
the appointment of special committees for research and study 
of Finished Family Work is not essential, and the way to add 
this department is to add it. The admirable and exhaustive 
presentation by Mr. Downer on payment of employee is, in 
my judgment, not an issue at this time, but I want to record a 
belief that his idea of a bonus system is not practical in any 
laundry department. Mr. Downer favors the pound plus piece 
charge as a step in the right direction, but I cannot find that it 
has been generally accepted by the laundryowners of the country, 
nor does it appeal to me as a correct basis for a service charge 
However, this branch of service and this charging method must 
be deferred for a special analysis, as it does not fit in my proposed 
charge for Pound Laundry Service, and which title I suggest 
as preferable to "F. F. W." or "Rough Dry." 

Mr. H. H. Gilpatrick, in his paper at the Missouri conven- 
tion, commits himself very strongly to the pound method, 
but thus far cannot reconcile such a pound price with a piece 
price. He thinks there might be an inequity to the customer 
and, as an illustration, makes comparisons showing the great 
disparity in contents of bundles that bring parallel prices. 
I cannot regard this objection as having any weight especially 



Pound Laundry Service 93 

as this same "inequity" is an elementary characteristic of the 
business. We charge the same for a 14-inch shirt or collar as 
we do for the 17-inch. There is a difference of 6 to 8 ounces in 
differing sizes of underwear. On the Gillpatrick flat work list 
the sheet is 5 cents irrespective of whether it is 90x108, weighing 
33 ounces, or 54x99, weighing 18^ ounces. Here is a difference 
of ironing 9720 square inches as against 5346 square inches. 
It is impossible to fix varying charges for varying sizes and the 
law of average is always an acceptable base, and when applied it 
works neither injustice nor inequity to patron or to the laundry- 
owner. 

For the purpose of comparison, the address by Mr. Gill- 
patrick is reprinted in this number. His exhibit of over 300 
bundles is the basis for the claim that 7 cents the pound and 13 
cents additional the pound for ironing rough dry is inadequate. 
I am ready to concede this, but it will be remembered that the 
exhibits I offered were for November and August, and in the 
conclusions regarding the excess of starched pieces in August 
I made it plain that such a condition might be a hazard. But I 
am not so sure that we cannot afford this apparent loss of 12 5^ per 
cent in a summer week from the Gillpatrick revenue if we can 
establish a simple, easily sold, all-the-year-round service. 
However, it will be unwise to accept the exhibits of a single 
week on which to base deductions and possibly our cost experts 
may have to survey a number of plants and compile the results 
of a number of weeks. Through the courtesy of the Model 
Laundry Co., of Cincinnati, I have had access to a number of 
inside details regarding the operations which would influence a 
new service by the pound, and I am more than ever convinced 
that the project is feasible, will be popular, assures a satisfactory 
profit and opens new channels of effort that will result in materi- 
ally strengthening the business. For a number of reasons, I 
have, however, decided to advocate a different method of pricing 
Pound Laundry Service. The method of one price for flat and 
an additional price for rough dry ironing is involved; it lacks 
simplicity, it is not attractive and would therefore make a 
difficult marketing proposition. The housewife demands some- 
thing definite and, knowing her budget, she is insistent on know- 
ing what is going to be the cost. When you put on a price with 
the "up" attachment, it excites a restlessness and a distrust. 
She asks the routeman and she phones and she wants to know 
just for the same reason that none of us like to give out a con- 
tract without knowing the maximum cost. I am not persuaded 
that an indefinite price or an open door opportunity for an 
ascending price even on fancy wear is a good thing. A fair 
price and a public price is an undoubted aid to marketing and 
an understood and accepted schedule takes away a load of 
useless explanation that is a burden forced upon routemen, 



94 Pound Laundry Service 

phone girls and office attendants. Although I believe that the 
price I previously advised will cover all contingencies, I now claim 
the price should be a straight 15 cents the pound and the mini- 
mum bundle from the household should be placed at 20 pounds. 
This minimum may be difficult to establish on some routes and 
it may compel a housewife to send every other week, but it is a 
substitute for the private laundress at a parallel price and certain 
rules and regulations will be acceptable to the patron and the 
plan lends itself to a system that will go far toward reducing 
the present abnormal cost of collection and delivery. The 
question of a minimum is, however, a debatable phase of the 
problem, and while I can see an opening for a lower minimum I 
am presenting the present price and minimum for immediate 
adoption by such far-sighted managers as can visualize a really 
good thing. 

Mr. Gilpatrick, by his price method, shows a revenue of 
$623.40 for 4,526 pounds. At 15 cents the pound this would 
mean a revenue of $678.90 or an increase of nearly 9 per cent. 
If you can sell the equivalent of Pound Laundry Service at the 
Gillpatrick list price, I believe it is a certainty that the housewife 
will be attracted to the simpler and infinitely surer basis. I 
shall resist the temptation to controvert some of the deductions 
that arise from a comparison of the varying sizes and weights of 
the garments. The power laundry is a mechanical proposition 
employing scientific methods and labor saving apparatus. The 
correctly informed insider knows the cost of operation and the 
separate cost of items and there is nothing in these comparisons 
to indicate or reflect any possible phase of danger in costs. The 
one and the only uncertain factor is hand ironing and the mod- 
ern press has to a very great extent eliminated that. I was told 
recently by Mr. D. H. Benjamin of an experience in a very high 
grade plant that specializes and caters to a selected patronage, 
and charges stiff prices. The fancy ladies' wear, probably of the 
expensive sort, was less than 25 per cent of the pound bundles 
and, what is most interesting, all but 10 per cent was ironed on 
the press. It is inconceivable that such a ratio would mean a 
menace and especially when it is remembered that the ironing 
board of the press can be made any desired form or shape. In 
the Gilpatrick 4,526 pounds, 1,047 pounds was called the 
starched division and in this was included 2.491 handkerchiefs, 
92 night shirts and 328 night dresses. These items should not be 
calculated as starched pieces, and their total weight deducted 
from the 1,047 shows 689 pounds of starched pieces, and which 
is somewhat above the weight shown in other surveys. The 
revenue on piece basis was $275.51, or 40 cents the pound, and 
which of course is a very handsome price, while on the 15 cent 
basis the revenue is $103.35, a difference of $172.16. For the 
flat and soft work the revenue at 15 cents on 3,837 (4,526 minus 



Pound Laundry Service 

SUMMARY. 
Forty Patrons — Pound Laundry Service. 



95 





< 


■o 

!1 
1^ 




Selling 
Price 






Weight — Pounds 


598 


483 


1081 














Pieces 


1796 


1955 


3751 
















Average Revenue per 
piece 










4>^c 
















Average weight to patron 










27 lb. 














Pound Laundry Service 
at 15c the pound 








$162.15 


















Pound Laundry Service 
at 12c the pound 








129.72 


















Pound Laundry Service 
at 7c the pound, plus 
13c the pound for iron- 
insf rouefh drv 








138.46 


















List or Piece price for 
3751 pieces 








245.81 


















Rough Dry Comparison 
7c the pound 








75.67 
113.18 
102.37 

91.56 




R. D. 


the piece 










10>^c lb. 


6c the pound, plus Ic 
the piece 








9>^c lb. 


5c the pound, plus Ic 
the piece 








8>^c lb. 



A comparison by proportioning the Gilpatrick exhibit to forty patrons 
is not useful, as the Gilpatrick exhibits show an average of only 15^ pounds 
to the patron as against 27 pounds in the Model exhibit. 



689) pounds is $575.55, while the Gilpatrick revenue was 
$347.98. In other words, on the 15 cent basis there is a loss of 
$172.16 on starched pieces and a gain of $227.57 on flat and soft, 
or a net gain over the piece price of $55.41. If there is an 
operating loss in doing 689 pounds of starched pieces for $103.35 
and if it exceeds $55.41, then the piece price brings more revenue; 



96 Pound Laundry Service 

but it would, in my judgment, be more than offset by a higher 
operating cost. Through the courtesy of the Model Laundry 
Co., of Cincinnati, I am able to present a tabulation of 40 
bundles of Pound Laundry Service. The customers represent 
an average classification and range in their individual incomes 
from $2,500 to $25,000 the year. These 40 bundles are selected 
because they come near to the average trade to be expected. 
The tabulations of ironing time, shaking, and other operatnfg 
expenses are interesting and the hand ironing especially will 
provide an index to the extra costs, or rather the feared bugaboo 
of extra costs, that have disturbed some of the experts. I be- 
lieve the chart very forcefully tells its own story. 

The columns show a 15 cent and a 12 cent price, and both 
are calculated, because there has been a difference in judgment 
in a number of conferences as to the most logical marketing price. 
I am convinced that 15 cents is correct and I am sanguine it will 
be popular. The average bundle, it will be noted, is a little 
over $4, but 13 patrons are below the required 20 pound mini- 
mum. While this is a disturbing factor, it is not serious, because 
a 15 pound minimum would also be a very desirable advantage 
in collection and delivery. The chief and paramount value lies 
in the simplicity of the plan and the further comfort that it 
works neither inequity or disadvanatge to either patron or 
laundryowner. 



Comments on Pound Laundry Service 

By A. T. Downer. 



IN the interest of the laundry industry in general and the 
L. N. A. in particular it seems advisable to make a few 

comments on the article, "Pound Laundry Service" by Mr. 
Bacharach in The Starchroom for November. 

In the first paragraph, fifth sentence, Mr. Bacharach states: 
"Present indications point to the coming of a readjustment and 
reconstruction period which will involve the whole world but 
which from the viewpoint of trained observers will not affect 
nor seriously influence the laundry business." The writer cannot 
share in the opinions of the "trained observers" and the present 
economic and political tendencies make it imperative that every 
business man, including every laundryowner, be particularly 
observant and keep abreast of the times. An editorial in The 
Starchroom for October on "After Demobilization" warns the 
laundry managers to be alert to grapple with these new condi- 
tions. 

In referring to the writer's address at the L. N. A. convention 
Mr. Bacharach states that the payment of the employee and the 
methods of production "need not enter into the discussion, 
because the price necessarily will protect operating cost." How 
in the name of consistency can a price that will protect operating 
cost be established without considering very carefully all the 
elements entering into the cost of producing laundry work. 
How is the price reconciled with the "fair price and the public 
price" as stated in the fourth paragraph, fourteenth sentence? 
The rapid progress made by laundries in cost and general ac- 
counting have brought to light many interesting facts, particu- 
larly the relation of price to customer with the costs and methods 
of production and it is the opinion of the writer that the three 
must be considered in order to arrive at a price fair to the public 
and laundry. 

Mr. Bacharach makes the interesting statement in the 
second paragraph, ninth sentence — "In face of this conclusion 
the appointment of special committees for research and study 
of Finished Family Work is not essential and the way to add 
this department is to add it." Mr. Bacharach bases this on 
the fact that the present rough dry business "just growed" 
and every laundryowner probably realizes now that while there 
was a growth, there was little or no profit and that the starch 
business had been carrying the load. The progress of other 
industries is attributed in no small measure to the work of special 
committees, in fact practically every organization is dependent 



98 Pound Laundry Service 

upon committees for successful operation. Is the laundry 
industry to be one of the lamentable exceptions? Is it not a 
sign of egotism and decadence on the part of the laundries not 
to give the other industries the benefit of the doubt, if there be 
any doubt, as to the success of committees on research and study? 
Mr. Bacharach in the first paragraph believes the solution to 
be the "acceptance of a fixed price," a "concerted movement 
for a universal system," and a "definite plan." How can this 
"concerted movement" be brought about successfully without 
the work of a committee or committees? Are Mr. Bacharach's 
ideas the result of a research of two or more minds, or are his 
views the result of his own exclusive thinking? The conclusions 
arrived at as read in Chicago in the "Thoughts on Finished 
Family Work" are the results of the combined brains of some 
twenty-five live laundryowners. 

Further, Mr. Bacharach in the second paragraph, twelfth 
sentence, states that the pound and piece method "must be 
deferred for special analysis as it does not fit in my proposed 
charge for Pound Laundry Service." Does the pound and 
piece charge become incorrect because it does not "fit" in his 
method? Did Mr. Bacharach before he discarded the pound 
and piece method consider the handling in the laundry of the 
articles that make up the average bundle? What would be 
his method of paying for marking sheets and handkerchiefs, by 
the pound or piece? Again, what would the method be in the 
ironing, sorting, and bundling departments? It seems clear 
to the writer that the weight element in these departments is 
not as important as the piece element and the charge to the 
customer should therefore include this extra handling cost on a 
piece basis. 

Mr. Bacharach makes another surprising statement in the 
second paragraph, tenth sentence, to the effect that he wants to 
record his belief that the writer's idea of a bonus system is not 
practical in any laundry department. The writer knows from 
personal experience that this method is and has been successful 
in the Winchester Laundry. 

To repeat, the method of paying the employee is, in the 
opinion of the writer, of paramount importance, and must be 
considered in arriving at a fair charge to the customer and any 
system that does not give it proper recognition will be confronted 
with many difficult situations. 



A Reply to Mr. Downer*s Criticism 

By S, Bacharach. 



THE preface to Mr. Downer's article, expressed in his 
opening paragraph, may be interpreted to present a 
dubious impHcation as to my loyalty "to laundry interests 
in general and the L. N. A. in particular." If I understand the 
purpose and the aim of the L. N. A., criticism and debate on 
laundry methods is welcome and so long as constructive intent 
is the basis of such criticism there can be not the slightest 
objection. I am, therefore, at a loss to know why it is advisable 
to make the comments for the "L. N. A. in particular." 

In the several points that Mr. Downer attempts to make 
there is, of course, some basis for his criticism but especially is 
this true as he had selected particular phrases and which are 
largely explained and modified by the surrounding text. 

In regard to the coming reconstruction period I am still of 
the opinion that so far as the laundry trade is concerned it will 
not be a serious or vital factor. Prices of commodities and labor 
may still be excessive and occasion managerial problems, but 
there is bound to be a return of patronage and with the new prices 
that have been established for laundry service I cannot see 
much reason for pessimism. It is necessary for the laundry owner 
to continually keep abreast of the times no matter what the 
situation may be nor what struggles may portent in the in- 
dustrial world. The editorial on "After Demobilization" is 
consistent and it has been the invariable policy of The Starch- 
room to warn its readers of impending difficulties and to guard 
against surprises. 

The payment of employees and the method of production 
are, to a certain extent, standardized in the laundry business. 
We are approximately near the exact ascertainment of costs and 
we have the experience of efficient laundry managers on which 
to shape a fairly accurate calculation of entire costs. It would 
seem inconsistent to disregard this were it not for the fact that the 
table I presented is an exhibit from the actual working of an 
efficient laundry and, in addition thereto, it presents a separation 
of the work received so that the laundryowner who has a cost 
system can make the necessary comparison. By the expression 
"the fair price and the public price" was meant that there should 
be a fixed, unchangeable price, that is, unchangeable by reason 
of different contents, and that this price should be fair. In other 
words, I proceeded on the theory that a popular price and which 
would not include an unjustifiable profit would bring the big 
volume and thereby warrant the popular price by cutting 



100 Pound Laundry Service 

down overhead and administrative ratios. Mr. Downer is 
perfectly correct in his conclusion that cost and general account- 
ing has made rapid progress in the laundry trade and I do not 
in the least deprecate either the necessity or the value of this 
work. I agree with him that these must be considered in order 
to arrange a price. 

In regard to the appointment of special committees I am 
still of the opinion that we require neither research nor com- 
mittee deliberation. There is a very considerable latitude as 
to the value of committee work and I would be the very last 
one to wish the laundry trade to be a "lamentable exception" 
in any progressive step taken in the industrial world. I am not 
willing, however, to concede that we are on the same base as 
the commodity manufacturer, the jobber, or any other com- 
mercial pursuit. Ours is an intrinsically service proposition 
and the cost or production effect on our business is reflected in 
the varying changes in costs of materials and labor. Volume 
may diminish as it did diminish during the past year but the 
equilibrium is restored by the use of emergency prices. The 
public has paid the price with willingness and the greater per- 
centage of objection has come because of interrupted service. 

The project of Finished Family Work has been presented 
to the laundry world in a great many aspects for the last five 
years. The L. N. A. a few years ago had a congress in Chicago 
and this subject of Finished Family Work was specially con- 
sidered. There also have been a number of papers on the 
subject at different conventions and a great deal of discussion. It 
would seem to me, therefore, that after these many efforts to 
explain the proposition that further progress is not a certainty 
if we adopt a policy of continuing the discussion. I believe 
there is a very great deal of logic in the experience that has come 
to us because the pound laundry service proposition "just growed. 
It was tried and it was found that it added to laundry volume 
and laundry profits. In the experimental days the propaganda 
in its favor made few converts. From its birthplace, in Central 
New York, I believe, it jumped to Rochester, N. Y., and re- 
ceived real, scientific consideration under the laundry manage- 
ment of J. E. Kelso and the late D. M. Cooper. Without the 
special consideration of discussion of any group of advisers these 
men took their own initiative and the new department became 
a pronounced success. At that time and, in fact, at all times, 
the peak load and the delivery problem baffled laundry manage- 
ment. They tried week-end deliveries at a special discount 
and tried other inducements to get away from the big cost of 
carrying a large organization for the very large percentage of 
work that came in the early days of the week. In those days 
a great many laundryowners visited Rochester and the laundries 



Reply to Mr. Downer's Criticism 101 

doing pound work became a sort of kindergarten in this new 
science, and thereafter it "just growed." 

I recall the first experiment in Cincinnati. I think the 
year was around 1897 or 1898 when Mr. W. W. Riley, of the 
Model Laundry, established the department. Realizing that 
it was a new proposition, he circulated a very handsome booklet 
and ofi'"ered the service at 4c a pound. "We'll send for the 
family washing on Thursday, Friday or Saturday of each week, 
just as you desire. The wash will be returned the following week 
completed; washed, starched and the fiat work ironed, at a cost 
to you at the rate of 4c the pound." This was the introductory 
offer and it made a success. From Cincinnati, to Dayton, 
to Cleveland to Indianapolis and other contiguous cities the in- 
novation grew in attractiveness and it was not many years be- 
fore a number of these cities were doing from 50 ton to 100 ton 
per week. 

I entirely agree with Mr. Downer on the educational value 
of committees and meetings and especially conventions. I 
consider the L. N. A. the biggest and the best educator in the 
business and, if not a single department instituted under its 
direction was a success, it would yet be invaluable because it 
creates the necessary atmosphere and it creates the situation for 
an interchange of opinions and an absolutely sure trade educa- 
tion. This is of primary importance although a single unit which 
represents the whole trade is almost of equal importance. But 
business cannot always await full evolution or complete educa- 
tion by purely academic efforts. There must be experiment and 
necessarily, there must be initiative. 

Laundryowners have been quite content to lose money in 
certain departments without a shadow of investigation and 
without a single atom of justification. In my effort, and es- 
pecially in the preparation of the tabulations, I have sought to 
show that the plan is feasible and if the owner will accept this 
view then the advantage from the profit viewpoint must come 
within the scope of individual ability and plant capacity. We 
are doing rough dry at 7 or 8 or 9 cents a pound and the tabu- 
lations have attempted to prove that a price of 15c a pound for 
finishing 20 pounds is an absolutely sure business proposition 
and a certain profit maker. "A concerted movement for a 
universal system" and "a definite plan" meant to me an accept- 
ance of my proposition and a tryout by the laundryowner, who, 
from the evidence offered, would dare to accept the initiative. 
I realize in the completest sense that the conclusions read by 
Mr. Downer in Chicago represented the combined opinions of a 
number of men and it was my intent, even though my language 
may have been inadequate, to express an admiration for the 
effort even though 1 could not concur and felt that in some 



102 Pound Laundry Service 

spots the logic was weak. Neither the tabulations which I have 
presented nor the arguments which I have advanced are wholly 
mine. I have visited a great many laundries, talked to a great 
many managers, collated a large number of figures, and in every 
respect the matter I presented is an assembling of the thoughts 
and experiences and conclusions of a number of men who are 
considered to be trained observers and efficient managers. 

In regard to the pound and piece price, it does not become 
incorrect just because I refuse to consider it at this time in con- 
nection with pound laundry service. My aim has been to present 
a proposition that would appeal as a marketing proposition and 
I felt that the greater the simplicity of the plan the greater the 
probability of success and the more enthusiasm I could get from 
the routemen and salesman. If, in the maintenance of such 
ideas, it creates the impression of egotism, I wish to disclaim 
such an erroneous idea because I am willing at all times to sur- 
render any conviction if I find the other fellow has a better 
thought or a better plan. I neither condemn nor favor the 
pound plus piece plan. In reality it means, after all, only so 
much per pound and I do not think that it possesses as many 
advantages for the attraction of patrons as does the straight-out 
pound service marketing proposition. 

The method of production, paradoxical as it may sound, is 
not a consideration that constitutes a barrier. We are now doing 
rough dry at so much per pound and I assume an income for the 
work that means a profit. The only addition that is imposed 
by Finished Family Work is the ironing of the soft pieces and 
of the ladies' wear. There is an extra cost for sorting and an 
extra cost for bundling and there must be perhaps some change 
in the method of loading the truck or wagon. With my minimum 
of 20 pounds at a price of 15c per pound, each customer repre- 
sents a $3 income. W^ith a moderate sized equipment to take 
care of perhaps 100 bundles a day, and with deliveries arranged 
on a five-day schedule, I believe and, in fact, the tabulations 
that I have presented prove, that the only uncertainty so far as 
cost is concerned is the varying and perhaps hazardous cost that 
may arise from handling the ladies' wear. So far as a practice 
of paying for marking, sorting, etc., is concerned I would prefer 
to leave that to each individual manager and which, as Mr. 
Downer knows, is the present practice. 

There is no uniformity in laundry payrolls and I do not 
think there ever will be, simply because of the fluctuating con- 
ditions in different localities. Our laundry cost experts will 
tell us the maximum wage for each department, based on a certain 
volume, but even this maximum wage and even this labor cost 
will be dependent on other costs as to whether or not we are 
going to make a profit. I have found cost comparisons very 
often misleading because of the fluctuating conditions of which 



Reply to Mr. Downer's Criticism 103 

I speak. Differences of 1 or 2 per cent in ratio mean considerable 
when the weekly volume is $2,000 or $3,000, but suppose we leave 
the matter of wage to the judgment of the individual manager 
and suppose we go on the broad basis of developing an entirely 
new department by just one or two new factors. We are 
now doing everything that is included in Finished Family Work 
and we have departments already created which know just how 
to handle this work, and though we may need a few additions 
in equipment or a change in the delivery system I can see no real 
reason that will preclude this initiative. 

In regard to labor wage and bonus and welfare work, there 
is a difference of opinion. In a great many laundry depart- 
ments we use unskilled labor and I apprehend that an unusually 
high wage for this class of labor will lead to an excessive elevation 
in the general average of wages in a laundry. I believe in a 
perfectly ventilated shop, in restrooms, and in every sanitary 
convenience that can preserve and benefit the health of employees 
I believe they should receive the maximum wage consistent with 
loyal effort, and this wage in its adequacy should command 
quality work without the payment of a premium. Welfare 
work is undoubtedly beneficient and sometimes advisable. It 
has, however, certain limitations and when faulty judgment 
violates or exceeds these limitations it produces a condition that 
handicaps the plant. Neither welfare work nor bonuses present, 
in my judgment, any obstruction to the immediate adoption of 
Finished Family Work at a price of 15c the pound and the mini- 
mum at 20 pounds. I have been urged to consider a minimum 
of 15 pounds on the theory that the initial price, like the initial 
price in rough dry work, should be attractive. I cannot concede 
this because I believe that the $3 minimum and the 15c price 
is a very attractive marketing proposition and that the housewife 
is receiving a service of inestimable value to her. 

My method of presentation is perhaps susceptible to ad- 
verse criticism because necessarily these conclusions are pic- 
tured in what might be considered an arrogant spirit. If such 
an impression is gleaned it is inaccurate and I am simply trying 
to put forcefully the deductions of a number of men and a 
number of managers who have impressed me with their logical 
sincerity and the conviction that the plan is right and that the 
way to add this department is to add it. 



The Family Wash* 

By H. H. Gilpatrick 



JUST four years ago, at our state convention, held in Kansas 
City, I find in my records my first attempt to talk on the 
subject of family washing. After reading my article in 
The Starchroom of May, 1914, I thought possibly I might use 
the same article on you this time and save some work. But 
I discovered that, while my ideas now are much the same as 
then, we have made much progress in this line of work since that 
time. The conditions which confront us today are such that 
make it absolutely necessary for us to develop the family work. 

The first thing I would call your attention to is the splendid 
effort of all laundryowners to take advantage of the change in 
the method of charging for family flat work. It is surely going 
to be a blessing to us to know that we have arrived at that stage 
in our business when we can all have a standard system for 
selling our work, and the pound basis for family flat has solved 
the problem. This class of work is distinct in itself and should 
be fostered and developed. At the price we get now we can 
see a profit. 

It has taken extreme conditions of supply costs, etc., to 
jar us loose from the old piece price and cut rate policy, but it is 
very gratifying to see the results of the many educative talks 
along this line. I think it will be a long time before we get away 
from the pound price on flat work. The good old rough dry 
department is established among us, and is doing wonders. 
The demand for this class of work is enormous, and our laundries 
are sending out a very creditable brand of this work, which by 
the way, is one of our best profit producers. I contended at 
first that the family finished work was another step for the 
laundryowners to take, and, as I have stated before, has nothing 
whatever to do with either the family flat or rough dry. 

I think it is a mistake to try to make family finished cus- 
tomers out of rough dry customers. Then there are thousands 
of families who want rough dry and will pay a good price for 
good work, so I believe we should make an efibrt for the finished 
family work with the class of families who would not be satisfied 
with rough dry. Besides, I doubt if we can make the profit out 
of finished family work that we can out of rough dry. 

During the last four years we have been studying and work- 
ing with the finished family work, we found that there are great 
volumes of this work to be had, and our efforts along this line 
have proven very satisfactory. The patron who gives us their 

♦Address before Missouri Convention. 



The Family Wash 105 

family work is the best satisfied customer we have today. 
The fact is we have always had about all we could do. 

I find that it is very desirable for them to put up the en- 
tire family washing in one bundle, including shirts, collars, 
curtains, rugs and blankets. We always separate the shirts and 
collars and put them in the finished work, but everything else 
we keep in the family department. But the big idea, as I see it, 
is to educate the public for the family finished bundle, as this 
is what they want, and give them a satisfactory laundered cur- 
tain, and charge the right price for it; also a blanket, quilt or 
rug. These items are not priced any different from our regular 
prices on our lists, but when we deliver them the entire washing, 
it relieves them of any thought of a washing at home and that 
is what we are after. 

During our recent labor troubles, when we had our wagons 
off the streets for two weeks, we were surprised to see that our 
family customers were the most loyal of any. It is a fact that 
they brought to our office over 200 family bundles each week 
and called for them, all of which goes to show that we would 
have a hard time losing them as long as we do satisfactory 
work. 

Again, let me say to you that we must do all the things that 
make up the family bundle — do all curtains, rugs, blankets, 
quilts, and finish the entire bundle. If we do this and do it 
well, we will not need to worry where our shirts and collars have 
gone. It is true some of them are in the rough dry, but let them 
be there, we get everything else with them. 

We have our finished family department in a separate 
building from our laundry, and everyone in this building belongs 
to the family department. This is not absolutely necessary, 
but where you can do so, I think it very desirable. I find that 
our family department runs along with less friction and worry 
than any of the other departments. 

I always have claimed that we should not mark this work, 
as you all know. But I have changed my mind in this respect, 
as I find it more advantageous to have it marked, and it is more 
economical. At first we kept each bundle separate, giving 
individual service. We now use the Rose label machine, and 
handle it in lots, sewing tape on each article, except the flat work, 
which we still keep separate. I made this change and did not 
ask anyone, and to my surprise we have had no complaints 
whatever. We have small lots of four bundles in a lot, and still 
use the small wheel to wash with. 

There is one thing I think very desirable for this work, that 
is to use a small diameter wash wheel, as it does beautiful work 
and is easy on the clothes. One thing we must keep in mind, 
and that is we have a class of goods in this department very 
different from any other, and the best we can give them is not 
too good. 



106 Pound Laundry Service 

Let me say again that this class of work has come to stay, 
and is going to be something for us to work with to keep up our 
volume. Our family finished department is now doing about 
$34,000 per year, curtains about $6,000; rugs and blankets about 
$2,500, a total of $42,500 business to take the place of some of the 
lost shirts and collars. I have taken a cost of the family 
finished department for one week, in which we had 322 bundles 
averaging $2 each, and the week's business was $670.43. I 
have an accurate cost on operation, and I can say to you truth- 
fully that it shows a profit of 21 per cent. This is a conservative 
figure, and when taken along in connection with our regular 
work, it is a big factor in reducing our overhead expenses, and 
incidentally increase our general profits. 

When I look back and see the development of the laundry 
business in recent years, I can see no reason why the family 
work of all kinds should not be developed and secured in very 
satisfactory volumes, as the public wants this service and will 
pay for it. And don't forget, when we are satisfying the lady 
of the house and relieving her of some of her worries, we are ac- 
complishing something which will be a permanent benefit to 
our industry. 

Our system of charging for family work is the same as we 
started out with — ^that is, charging by the piece for everything, 
and keeping the list at the laundry. This has proven very satis- 
factory, and we have raised our price quite a little from time to 
time and have had no trouble. I am strong for the piece price 
for family finished work, on account of the great difference of 
prices when it comes to ironing them. 

I think the pound price for flat and rough dry is ideal and 
is an aid to development. These two classes of work are satis- 
factory on a pound basis. The washing and fiat work ironing 
can be equalized easily as to the various prices, without any 
great loss. 

Now, when we talk of doing family finished work by the 
pound, we have a hard problem. While I would like to be able 
to do so, I cannot see how we could be fair either to our patrons 
or ourselves. In the first place I think we should include every- 
thing taken from the home in our family bundle. It has been 
suggested to charge extra for shirt waists, which as we all know 
could not possibly be done by the pound. I think we will make 
a mistake to put a special price on any article. We must have 
some system of charging that will keep the bundle intact. 

It is my belief that those who have figured on ironing by 
the pound have used rough dry as a basis, so I have taken the 
trouble to weigh one week's run of family finished work — over 
300 bundles, showing weight of flat work, soft work and starched 
work. I wish to say here that I am in favor of a pound basis, but 
I believe it will be a hard proposition to keep from making one 



The Family Wash 



107 



PRICES CHARGED BY GILPATRICK LAUNDRY 



No. 


Ladies' List. 


Price 


No. 


Gentlemen's List. 


Price 




Dresses 


25 up 
25 up 

15 

20 up 

15 up 

20 up 

8 

5 

3 

10 

5 up 

5 

15 

5 

5 

3 

5 

8 up 

20 

20 




Union Suits 


10 




Wrappers 


Undershirts 


5 




Waists 


Drawers 


5 




Skirts 


Pajamas 


10 






Shirts, Common 

Night Shirts 


10 




Kimonos 


8-10 




Drawers . 


Handkerchiefs 


1 




Ruffles . 


Neckties 


3 




Hose 


Socks 


3 




Night Dresses 


Coats 






Aprons 


Pants 






Corset Covers 


Children's List. 

Child's Dresses 

Child's Skirts 






Dressing Sacques 

Vests 


10 up 

15 up 

Sup 

5 
5 




Napkins, Sanitary 

Collars, Soft 




Child's Aprons 

Child's Drawers 

Child's Sleepers 

Child's Rompers 

Child's Waists 




Collars, Ladies' 

Union Suits 




Princess Slips 


10 up 
10 




Combination Suits 

Suits 




Child's Underwaists. . . . 
Chuld's Suits 


3 




Handkerchiefs 


1 










Child's Pants 


5 










Doilies 


3 up 
5 up 










Dresser Scarfs 










FLAT WORK LIST 



Towels, Hand. 
Towels, Bath . . 
Towels, Roller. 

Napkins 

Table Cloths . . 
Table Felts ... 

Sheets 

Pillow Slips ... 
Bolster Slips . . 
Pillow Shams . . 



1 

2 

3 

1 
10 up 
20 up 

S 

3 

5 



Counterpanes . 
Sash Curtains. 

Rugs 

Tea Towels . . . 
Lunch Cloths. 

Blankets 

Quilts 

Rags 

Dish Towels . . 



15 up 
5 up 
5 up 

1 
5 up 



108 Pound Laundry Service 

customer pay the tariff on another's bundle. This, as I believe 
would not be so great in rough dry or flat, but on the finished 
article, it is something I cannot grasp. However, I am willing 
to be shown. 

In my division of the work I called soft work everything 
that was dried in the tumbler and did not need any ironing. 
For the starched work I included handkerchiefs and night shirts 
and night dresses along with the starched work, as they are done 
by the same woman on the hand board. 

The total weight of these 300 bundles was 4,526 pounds, for 
which we received, at our piece price, $623.49, or 13 4/5 cents 
per pound for all. The flat work weight was 2,780 pounds. 
Our price was $170.42, or 6yi cents a pound for all flat work. 
Total starched work, 1,047 pounds, for which we received $342.42, 
or 32^ cents a pound. Total soft work 699 pounds, for which 
we received $110.65, or 15^:( cents a pound. For both soft and 
starched work we received $453.07, or 25 7/10 cents a pound. 

Now, if we charged 7 cents a pound for all, 4,526 pounds 
at 7 cents equals $316.82; and 13 cents for all soft and starched 
work, 1,746 pounds at 13 cents equals $226.98, a total of $543.80 
against $623.49, would be a loss of close to 13 per cent. 

These figures show me that we could not do the class of 
work we have in our family department at those prices of 7 
cents for flat and 13 cents for the finished product, and I am sure 
we could not ask them to pay 32^ cents a pound for the starched 
work. In this bunch of work we had 1,347 ladies' handkerchiefs, 
1,144 gentlemen's handkerchiefs, 92 night shirts, 328 night 
dresses, 130 shirt waists, 244 gentlemen's union suits, 279 pairs 
of socks, 224 pairs of hose, 212 doilies and dresser scarfs. Night 
shirts weighed J/2 lb., night dresses ^ lb., ladies' handkerchiefs 
60 to the lb., gentelmen's handkerchiefs 26 to the lb., ladies' 
union suits }i lb., gentlemen's union suits }4 to l}4 lbs. each, 
hose 4 pairs to the lb., socks 8 pairs to the lb., ladies undervests 
7 to the lb.; B.V.D.'s union suits X lb., child's drawers, muslin, 
10 pairs to the lb., child's dress }{ lb., child's U. waists 12 to 
the lb., child's waists >4 lb. 

Our price list which we have raised recently will bring more 
money on this work than the 7 cents and 13 cents lb. price. 
The worst drawback in the pound price with the finished work, 
as I see it, is the discrimination of one customer against the other. 
One bundle might contain 5 gents union suits, and each weigh 
one pound, at 20 cents, that would be $1; another might have 
5 B.V.D. union suits which only weight >4 lb., so he would get 
them for 25 cents. We get 5 cents per pair for children's drawers, 
and it takes 10 pairs to weigh a pound, so we would lose 30 cents. 

As I said before, I am strong for the pound price, but I 
can't reconcile myself to its use for finished work, as the ironing 
cost enters into it and we could not afford to do some clothes by 



The Family Wash 109 

the pound on account of their light weight, and we also could not 
take others on account of their heavy weight, although one might 
be as easy to do as the other. 

I will say in conclusion, get busy and develop family work 
of all kinds and show some of us the best way to charge for 
same, as the receipts are what we are all after. 



Laundry Service Prices 

By S. Bacharach. 



A GREAT many inquiries have been made seeking informa- 
tion concerning a standardized price for laundry service. 
There is no standard that has been adopted nationally 
and in every city there are changes along certain lines and this 
is especially true in regard to flat work, and in the practice govern- 
ing its pricing and delivery. The subjoined list represents the 
price list in a large city and in the preparation, or rather in the 
adjustment of charge, there has been expended a vast amount of 
research and labor. In the judgment of the writer, there are a 
number of items that are prohibitive and will tend rather to 
diminish volume than to bring a profit. The modern laundry 
with labor-saving equipment can do a wholesale business in many 
articles and by special methods on a big volume can very mater- 
ially reduce costs and the increased income will reduce the 
ratio of overhead and administration expense. This evident 
factor has not received the correct nor the economic considera- 
tion it deserves. 

This list is furnished for the information of the reader but 
it should not be regarded as the ultimate adjustment in laundry 
service charges. Measures are being perfected to prepare this 
list in an amplified index form and in shape for a vest-pocket 
memorandum book. In the meantime, laundryowners will do 
well to compare it with their own prices, note the differences 
and seek to discover a basis for a reasonable and patronage- 
compelling laundry service charge. 

SHIRTS. Shirts — Continned 

„ £. , ► an Fine Plaited, White. .20 .25 

Soft Shirts 15 .20 t^ t>. V irr oa 

Negligees 13 .18 Fine Plaited Colored . 17 20. 

WORK Shirts 13 ... ^^^ ^«^^- Drawers 

^ „ Attached 25 

Plaited Bosoms with 

OR without cuffs. . .17 .20 MEN S WEAR. 

Plain Bosoms with or Night Shirts 

without cuffs 15 .20 .12 .20 

Tango, White or Underdrawers 

Colored 17 .20 .07 .09 .12 .15 

Silk 20 .25 Undershirts 

Flannel 20 .25 .07 .09 .12 .16 

Plaited Bosoms C. & Union Suits 

C. Attached 20 .25 .14 .18 .24 .30 

Plain Bosoms C. & C. Pajamas, per suit 

Attached 20 .25 .20 25 



Laundry Service Prices 



111 



Men's Wear — Continued 

Hose (Golf .10) 

.06 ... .08 

Handkerchiefs 

.02 05 

Ties 

. 06 up 

Ties and Socks 

. 10 up 

Vests (Dress . 30) 

.20 

Pants, Overalls . 18, 2 for 35 

Pants, Palm Beach 30 

Pants, Duck 30 

Pants, Riding 30 

Pants, Flannel 30 

Coats, Bar, Dental, Doctor . 15 

Coats, Long 30 

Coats, Long 45 

Coats, Childs 15 up 

Coats, Palm Beach 30 

Coats, White street wear . . .30 

Chemisettes 06 

Shirt Sleeves per pair with 
cuffs 08 

COLLARS AND CUFFS. 

Regular Stiff Collars.. .03 up. 

Regular Stiff Cuffs 03 

Soft Collars 03 >^ 

Buster Brown 03^ 

Ladies Special Collar . . .05 up. 

LADIES WEAR. 

Aprons, Bar 6c, Butcher 6c 
Aprons, Bungalow, 10 and 15c 
Aprons, Nurses Bib 9c, Shoulder 

12c 
Aprons, Regular 7c, Small Ccl. 

6c, Small White 6c 
Aprons, Good Sam. Hosp. 7c 

Single Bib 2c. 
Combinations 18c up. 
Corset Covers 10c, Silk 15c 
Chemise 12>^c, 2 for 25c, Sn.K 20c. 

Under vest 06 

White Drawers 12 

Dresses, Childs 10 up 

Dresses, Nurses, Colored.. . .30 



Ladies' Wear — Continued 

Dresses, Nurses, White 40 

Dresses, Fancy 35c, for Skirt or 

35c up for Waists. 

Dressing Sacques 17 up 

Kimonos 20 

Silk 25 

Night Dresses 15 

Silk 25 

Skirts, Childs 12 

Skirts, Colored 20 

Skirts, White 25 

Skirts, Top 30 

Skirts, Top 35 

Skirts, Top 40 

Operating Gowns 20 

Sweaters, Thin Body 20 

Sweaters, Heavy Coat. . . .30 up 

Sleeves, Ladies 06 

Corsets 25 

Overalls, Single 18 

Suit 35 

Gloves, Canton Flannel 06 

Gloves, Ladies 10 

Hair Cloths 06 

Cushion Covers 06 

Cushion Covers, Large or 

Ruffles 12 

Shrinking Goods — 

Per yd 04 

Double Width, per yd 05 

Flannel, per yd 06 

Flags, Cotton, sq. yd 06 3^ 

Flags, Wool, sq. yd 08 f^ 

Flags, Silk, sq. yd ll}4 

SPECIAL PRICES. 

Masonic Aprons 03 

L. M. Prince Coats 20 

Good Sam. Aprons 07 

Separate Bibs 02 

Overalls Comb. Suit so 

Bibs 03 

Gaiters 15 

Sun Bonnet 15 

Surplice 20 

Bolster Sham 20 

Pillow Sham 20 



112 



Pound Laundry Service 



Special Prices — Continued 

Princess Slips 25 up 

Envelope Chemise 15 

Hand Work Collars 03 >^ 

FLAT WORK LIST PRICES. 

Aprons, Men's, Plain 05 

Bolster Cases 05 

Blankets, Wool, Double 

30 to . 60 

Blankets, Cotton, Double 

20 to .40 

Bed Ticks 15 to .30 

Bath Mats, per lb 07 

Comforts 40 up 

Doilies 03 to . 10 

Handkerchiefs 02 

Napkins, Plain 01 up 

Pads, per lb 07 

Pillow Cases 03 to . 06 

Quilts 25 up 

Rags 01 up 

Rugs, per lb 07 

Scarfs 05 up 

Sheets 06 

Spreads 15 

Table Cloths, per yd 03 

Towels, Roller 03 

Towels, Hand 02 

Towels, Bath 03 

Tray Cloths 05 up 

Wash Rags 01 

Pound Work, per lb 07 

(Because of the varying sizes the 
following articles are laundered 
upon a basis of 7c per lb. — 
Bath Mats, Pads, Rugs.) 



LADIES' CLOTHES. 

Wrappers 30 

Waist, Boy, No Collar 12 

Waist, Boy, With Collar 16 

Waist, Colored 17 

Waist, Colored 25 

Waist, Regular 35 

Waist, Regular 30 

Curtain, Regular Lace 85 

Curtain, Sash 05 

Curtain, Sash 15 

Curtain, Sash 20 

Curtain, Sash 25 

Curtain, Sash 30 

Coats, Ladies 35 up 

Child's Union Suits 14 

Child's Night Shirts 08 

Child's Rompers 15 

Caps, Dust or Cook 06 

Hats, White Canvas 15 up 



Semi and Finished Work 

W. W. Williams, Hartford, Conn. 



I HAVE been requested to talk to you this afternoon on two 
subjects which, at the present time, seem to be uppermost in 
the minds of the thinking men in the laundry fraternity. 
While I do not agree with your president that he was justified in 
asking me to talk to you on such important matters, still I am 
willing to assist in any way that I can in the reconstructive work 
which our National Association has undertaken in conjunction 
with our Government. Personally I am not competent to handle 
these subjects as thoroughly as their importance deserves. 
However, my willingness to do my best comes from an earnest 
desire to better the conditions which are confronting our industry. 

I have labored long and earnestly to change conditions in 
the business with which I am connected in order to meet the 
rapidly changing conditions which have come and will continue 
to come about for the next few years, and I feel that if I am able 
to impart this information to you gentlemen in such a way that 
you will be at all benefitted by it I, in turn, will receive my 
reward for having bettered the general opinion or esteem in which 
laundries are held by the public at large. Therefore, my effort 
to impress upon you the importance of studying these changed 
conditions is not to place myself upon a pedestal but rather to 
get you to do likewise. I believe I can convince the most 
skeptical, if you will devote the time to come to our place of 
business, that what seemed impossible of accomplishment only 
a year ago is very easy to put into force today. 

Our business has suffered severe and, I may say, unjust 
criticism on account of our lack of ability to impress the public 
with the importance of our industry, and, therefore, when we 
have attempted to inaugurate reforms, we have been met with 
opposition from our customers, and, standing, as we have in 
many cases, aloof from our competitors, we have not had the 
moral courage to withstand the bombardment of criticism, and 
we would adopt the easiest way out which was to go back to 
the old methods. 

I refer especially now to the week end collections and de- 
livery service. This service has been not alone sanctioned but 
authorized and endorsed by the United States War Industries 
Board,^ and then only after thorough investigation of the subject 
had been made by them. 

The proverbial Monday wash-day should be no more and, 
in fact, if we are to place our business upon a profit making 
basis, it cannot continue to exist. The cost of our collection and 



114 Pound Laundry Service 

delivery service, or I might say our entire outside service, has 
increased by leaps and bounds until it is now impossible to 
cheapen that by employing cheaper methods of transportation, 
cheaper employees, therefore, the only avenue left is for us to 
utilize this branch of our service to its utmost and to attain as 
near 100 per cent efficiency as is possible. 

We have adopted and put into force the following system 
of collecting and delivering: 

All ivork collected on Monday is delivered on Thursday. 

Our Tuesday collections are delivered Friday. 

Our Wednesday collections on Saturday. 

Our Thursday collections on Monday. 

Our Friday collections on Tuesday, and 

Our Saturday collections on Wednesday. 

This is not deviated from in any particular even though the 
work may be ready to deliver two days in advance of the specified 
time. You must realize, in order to thoroughly understand the 
great benefit derived from this system, that we do not and will 
not attempt to collect as much work on Monday as we formerly 
did, neither do we collect as much work on Tuesday as we 
formerly did. As part of Monday is devoted to the delivery of 
v/ork and part of Tuesday, and in fact every other day in the 
week, therefore, it does not need any wonder-worker with figures 
to show you that a delivery clerk, working under these uniform 
conditions six days per week, can handle considerably more work 
than under the old system. The difference of what they are now 
handling as compared to the old conditions, I am perfectly 
willing to give to any man who is interested enough to come to our 
plant and make a study of it. 

Now, let us leave the outside and step inside for a moment. 
Can you men, who for years have been running your plant at a 
high rate of speed for four or four and a half days per week, 
contemplate what it would mean to you if your business were 
distributed evenly throughout the six days of the week, starting 
upon Monday exactly where you left off Saturday, and every 
day in the week likewise. Have you ever stopped to figure what 
it would mean to you in the reduction of the number of employees 
on the inside? Can you believe what it would mean to you in 
the improved quality of your work, that you would not have to 
rush for four days per week getting ninety per cent of your work 
through your plant at express train speed? Can you not imagine 
what a difference this would make to you in the all important 
matter of claims and shorts? Do you not realize that it gives 
you ample time to complete every bundle before it leaves your 
plant? 

I will venture to say that the majority of you men within 
hearing of my voice agree with me that all I have said is true. 



Semi and Finished Work 115 

I will also venture a further prediction that there is not ten per 
cent of you men present who have the moral courage to go back 
home and put ten per cent of what I have told you into effect — 
because you will tell me nothing new but the same old story — 
that it is different in my city than it is in yours. 

Now, I am going to say just a few words on the Finished 
Family Work. We all know that the shirt and collar branch of 
our business has suffered numerous losses attributable to different 
reasons. Hundreds of thousands of our young men, who were 
the best patrons of this branch of our industry, have gone into 
the service — some of them never to return — all of them divorced 
from the custom of wearing the starched shirt and collar, so that 
it is a question, on their return, as to whether they will cling to 
the soft garments or take up again with what we consider 
the more stylish apparel of their former days. It is a problem 
which we cannot solve, neither can we sit idly by and continue to 
run our establishment with the hope that this branch of our 
business will revive. 

The Rough Dry field has been exploited to such an extent 
that little need be said on that question. The finished family 
wash and ironing, however, while it is a new problem in our in- 
dustry has been given more solid thought, and there has been 
more time and earnest endeavor put into the question of the 
proper method of handling and pricing this branch of our work 
than anything else that our industry has ever undertaken. 

If you will but read the articles which are so freely and 
generously placed at your disposal on this subject in our trade 
papers and in national bulletins it will help yovi immensely if 
you are interested in developing this work in your plant; there- 
fore, I am going to tell you only how we are handling it and what 
we have accomplished and the troubles we ran up against as 
far as we have gone. 

In the first place, women's wearing apparel has changed to 
such an extent that many articles can no longer be handled in the 
customary manner, and it becomes more of a dry cleaning propo- 
sition than a laundering one. Aside from this, the old time and 
well known fancy ironer has disappeared from our midst and 
apparently there are no recruits to fill the ranks, so that when we 
are considering enlarging this branch, we must first be sure that 
we are in a position to return the apparel to the customer in a 
satisfactory condition, or in other words return it to her as she 
expects to have it returned to her. Machinery and appliances 
have been placed in our plant that assist greatly in the handling 
of this work, but the human element is still a vital necessity, and 
we must be sure of our supply. 

The method of pricing washings so it will be uniformly sat- 
isfavtory to the customer is a problem that is not yet worked 
out. In the short space of one year's time we have increased this 



116 Pound Laundry Service 

department 150 per cent, and we are making an initial charge of 
9 cents per pound upon receipt of the bundle, and then pricing 
each article individually with a price that we would be willing 
to do each article for if it was brought into the laundry separ- 
ately, and we then make a net discount on the prices charged for 
the wearing apparel of 33 per cent. The price of 9 cents per 
pound is the charge for ironing the flat pieces and washing and 
starching the personal apparel. We have found in a great 
many cases that these prices are prohibitive to the average family. 
We also have found that we are not making any more profit on 
this department than we are entitled to make. Nevertheless, the 
department has grown to such an extent that we felt justified in 
refusing to take on new customers because of our inability to 
secure women who could handle this work as it should be done — 
and right here let me interject one thought: Is it not a fact that 
7 per cent of the criticisms and complaints against the average 
laundry are correct and are justified? Why do we not more 
often place ourselves in the place of our customers? Why do 
we not take a bundle that is ready for delivery and take it into a 
far corner of our plant and open it up, and with a fair and open 
mind examine each piece, and place ourselves in our customers' 
shoes, and give an honest opinion to ourselves of that work.? 

We are offering ourselves as the medium through which the 
housewife can escape from the slavery of the wash tub. She 
entrusts to us everything that is dear to good housewives, and 
do we prove worthy of the trust? Can we not with just the 
exercise of a little bit of common sense, and without the expendi- 
ture of any great amount of money, adopt means and methods 
of handling this work sanely, so that it would be returned to her 
as she would like to have it? Would this not help more than 
anything we could do to get the public to agree to pay a reason- 
able charge for this work? Would this not help more than any 
other advertisements that we might use to increase this branch 
of our business? Think it over, and see whether the fault is 
not largely our own. 

Before I finish I want to say a word on prices. We believe 
and we have demonstrated that if you will conduct your business 
in a manner to gain the respect of your trade you will have no 
trouble in getting prices that are sufficient to pay you the profit 
that you are entitled to, and, in conclusion, I want to say that the 
efforts I have put forth here this afternoon are, after all, con- 
trolled by selfish motive, because I believe sincerely and thor- 
oughly in the industry in which I am engaged, and which furn- 
ishes me a living. I believe that the higher plane on which this 
industry is placed by each individual will reflect upon the in- 
dustry as a whole. This is true of everything. If a murder is 
committed in your home-town that unconsciously reflects upon 
the entire community of which you are a part. If any of the 



Semi and Finished Work 117 

members of our craft are exalted in the eyes of their fellow- 
townsmen, that reflects to the credit of our industry. Therefore, 
my motives are selfish, but my desire is to be of service to our 
industry, and to any man connected with it. 

Gentlemen, our doors are open and our time is yours. 

To substantiate these statements I have just made, I will 
give you some figures from our last week's business, if you so 
desire : 

Rough Dry Washings. 

572 Washings. 

8167 Pounds. 

2246 Handkerchiefs. 

11515 Pieces of Flat Work. 

7714 Pieces of Wearing Apparel. 

8167 Pounds at 9 cents $735.03 

Plus 2246 Handkerchiefs at 1 cent. ... 22 .46 

$757.49 

8167 Pounds at 7 cents $571.69 

Plus 19,229 pieces at 1 cent 192 . 29 

$763.98 
Difference in favor of 7 and 1 6 . 49 



Comparison — Between Rough Dry at 9 cents per pound and 
seven and one price: 

Finished Family Business. 

Finished Family Business: 

Number washings done 96 

Amount charged for same $292 .33 

Average amount for each wash 3 . 04 

96 washings weighed 1,658 lbs., at 9c. 149.23 
Amt. charged for ironing body clothes 143 . 10 

$292.33 

List price of body clothes 215 . 20 

Rec'd for ironing body clothes 143 . 10 

This lot of washings contained : 

2,504 pieces of flat work, 

1,069 pieces of body clothes. 

If this work had been done by the lb. 

the price would have been 17c per lb. 



118 Pound Laundry Service 

If done by the dozen, it would have 

been 97c per doz. 

Example. 

Washing weighs 20 lbs. at 9c $ 1 . 80 

Body clothes 1.37 

Total cost of washing $ 3.17 

Body Clothes List Price. 

1 Skirt $0.50 

1 Waist 25 

1 Drawers 15 

1 Undershirt 15 

1 Dress 1.00 

$2.05 

Less 33 1-3 per cent 68 

$1.37 Net 



Rough Drying Handkerchiefs 

New York City Laundries Discontinued Two-Cent Extra Charge 
and Do Not Iron in Pound Work. 

By W. B. Haggerty. 



ABOUT six weeks ago the bundle work laundries in New 
York City advanced the price of pound work from 9 cents 
to 1 1 cents, this raise taking efTect just prior to the holidays 
Under the old price handkerchiefs were finished at two cents 
apiece extra, but under the 11-cent price a new system of only 
rough drying the handkerchiefs was instituted, with no charge 
but the pound price. In no case are handkerchiefs ironed in the 
pound work bundle. 

According to all reports, the system has proven a success, and 
the belief is prevalent among the owners that it will work to the 
advantage of both customer and laundry. It is contended 
there is a little profit in handkerchiefs at two cents apiece when 
handled in the pound work department, but it is hardly possible 
any laundry can show a profit at one cent extra for handkercniefs 
at present day costs. It is extremely difficult to attempt to 
point out costs of handling handkerchiefs, as many laundries 
have customers who are constantly demanding rebates for 
lost "kerchiefs," and, according to the customers' claims, the 
costs vary considerably. Then there is the unknown losses that 
occur which are never reported. Where the latter case results 
a dissatisfied customer is created and the home process of washing 
is reverted to, with the result that an already educated com- 
mercial laundry customer is practically eliminated. 

The system used in rough drying the handkerchiefs is to 
count them going and coming, using a 10x12 net, washing, 
extracting and put in dry tumbler. The customer has not 
shown a disposition to insist on handkerchiefs being ironed 
and is delighted with the new system, as it has always been 
hard to explain to the housewife why it costs 80 cents to wash 
and iron a pound and a half of handkerchiefs while the charge for 
seven or eight pounds of other articles is only 80 cents. 

One of the prominent owners said the new system has a 
tendency to hold the customer, and no doubt would prove a 
factor in creating new customers, who heretofore felt they 
could not afford to send the work to the laundry every week, as the 
50 cent or $1 charge for handkerchiefs was too high and out of 
proportion, and in many cases the handkerchief charge was 
higher than the rest of the wash. Another owner declared he 
could not recall one claim coming in for lost handkerchiefs since 
the new system was installed, but previously the claims were the 
regular order, some of them, no doubt, just ones. 



120 Pound Laundry Service 

The washing of handkerchiefs at home is the most disagree- 
able part of the entire wash, while the ironing of them is the 
least disagreeable. So, it is natural to assume, laundryowners 
point out, that if a woman has to wash the handkerchiefs be- 
cause of the high cost in the laundry, she feels she might just 
as well do the entire wash. 

In placing this plan before readers of The Starchroom 
I am giving the opinion of laundryowners who have various 
ways of charging for handkerchiefs. There are some laundries 
ironing handkerchiefs without any extra charge, but they are 
fast getting away from that system. This plan surely should 
appeal to that class. Other laundries charging one cent extra 
can well afford to give this method careful consideration, as the 
best authorities claim it is impossible to handle handkerchiefs 
under present prices and make a profit at one cent extra. 

The laundry charging two cents, as was the case in New 
York, may not take so kindly to the proposition, as they may 
show a slight profit. However, when such laundries as the 
Stancourt, Wallach's, Carolyn and the Park, after trying the 
system find it works out to the advantage of all, there is excellent 
opportunity for this class of laundryowners in other cities to 
weigh the matter carefully before passing it up. The writer is 
fully convinced the doing away with an extra charge for hand- 
kerchiefs will make new pound work customers in any com- 
munity. I have heard successful laundryowners claim they 
would prefer not to have the handkerchiefs come in at all, and 
these men were getting two cents extra. If this idea is borne out 
by laundryowners in general, then I say rough dry them and let 
the customer iron them at home, as the detail of netting the 
handkerchiefs is very small. 

The writer is a great believer in building a future in any 
line of endeavor, but it is hardly within his vision to cope with 
the method employed by many laundryowners who are weekly 
picking up and delivering three collars at three cents each. 
The three-collar-a-week customer may some day be a better 
customer, but this is not the age for the laundryowner to conduct 
a service to any customer at a permanent loss, and these small 
bundles should be brought to the laundry and called for by the 
customer. 

On the other hand, there is another class of strictly collar 
customers who might be interested in trying out the pound rate 
system when told just what ten pounds or fifteen pounds, in- 
cluding the entire family wash, will cost. This set figure cannot 
be given where a separate charge is made for handkerchiefs. 

We should like to gather more data on this system of rough 
drying handkerchiefs and would welcome facts from laundries 
in any section of the country doing this class of work. 



267 90 







'^ ' • . «> J.N' 



iV^^ 







\.^^ 


































V 












^' ^^'% V 







. . ^ - • • " Jt^ 








* AOt 




^^.-^ 




Ao, 









.^^'\ - 














